New Live Action video shows Planned Parenthood encouraging gender-selective abortion, Medicaid fraud

posted at 8:41 am on May 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Want to see a real war on women?  Not one defined by the opposition to the imposition of a Hubby State and subsidies, but one in which women of the future are systematically eliminated?  Live Action went undercover last month at a number of abortion clinics across the nation to expose how the abortion industry assists and even encourages gender-selective abortion, a global trend that has eliminated tens of millions of girls before they ever draw breath outside the womb.  The video also shows a Planned Parenthood counselor in Texas explaining to a young mother how to defraud Medicaid:

“This was a multi-state, national investigation demonstrating that this is a widespread problem across our country,” Live Action president Lila Rose told The Daily Caller in an interview Monday.

“First of all, the statistics and studies indicate that we are adding to the growing problem across the world of sex-selective targeting of unborn girls for abortion. We are going to be demonstrating — starting with this video from Texas — that the abortion industry in the United States is aiding and abetting this horrific problem.”

The first in what Live Action says is a series of videotaped incidents exposing American abortion facilities’  willingness to assist in sex-selection abortions took place at a South Austin, Texas Planned Parenthood clinic. In the footage, a Planned Parenthood counselor appears to readily assist and advise a Live Action actor who said she was trying to obtain an abortion if her baby is female.

“In this video, what is astounding is that Rebecca, the Planned Parenthood counselor, starts arranging with the actor about how to get a late-term abortion,” Rose said. “To wait until her pregnancy is so developed that — and using Medicaid for this, using the state to pay for the ultrasound to determine the gender, and then to do a late term abortion if it was a little girl.”

Welcome to the real war on women.  This one has real casualties, too.  But even if one supports abortion rights for whatever purpose, should taxpayer dollars flow to organizations that offer advice on how to defraud Medicaid?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3 4

I’ve never known a single lib who has uttered a word of criticism to Planned Parenthood regarding their participation in involuntary abortions and sterilizations resulting in death by infections of millions of adult women over the life of the programs. Oh, and the documentation is all from government sources.

Nothing but praise from the libs for this modern holocaust. Nothing but support. Nothing but excuses and support.

If libs can excuse the slaughter of adult women, what use is it debating them on finer points? We already know they have no moral problem with infanticide or abortion… or more accurately, have no moral system at all.

theCork on May 29, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Wow! I hold the pro-life movement in contempt for habitual dishonesty, but even I am startled by the magnitude of the lying by theCork. Millions of dead adult women by infection in legal abortions? Really? And then there is the claim of documentation. Go right, theCork. Document this fantasy of yours!

thuja on May 29, 2012 at 2:41 PM

LibFree, here’s the link to the full footage in case you want to verify that the edited version presents everything in context:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6nnZlTwo3w

preallocated on May 29, 2012 at 2:41 PM

What is your basis for this statement? Margaret Sanger?

spiritof61 on May 29, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Observably plain, stark reality.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Sorry, I really don’t care if you kill your baby because it’s a girl or just because it will cramp your style. Either way, it’s wrong. Killing someone because she’s a girl is not worse than killing someone to save money, to have more free time, or to have better chances landing a mate.

Polynath on May 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Or “Roe vs Wade”?

listens2glenn on May 29, 2012 at 2:37 PM

I don’t think Roe v Wade refers to a simple definition of “individual” in order to justify abortion. From what I’ve read about it, Roe v Wade is poorly written law but, no matter. Treat the issue in terms of individualism for clarity. Abortion laws can be re-written, stifling a womans right to an abortion (selective-gender or not) can unjustly ruin her happiness for a long time.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Right, those aren’t real people; they can’t live on their own without help…Neither is a newborn or small infant… they’re morally the same as far as killing them goes. Just abort small babies; who cares… it should be legal to kill your kids.

gekkobear on May 29, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Wrong. A newborn or small infant are distinctly different than the human fetus or embryo. The former is a physically separate entity, the latter is not. The two do have things in common like neither can take care of themselves but, only one is an individual. Only one has rights.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Okay, then explain how Scott Peterson was convicted for TWO murders, one for Lacy Peterson, his wife, one for Connor Peterson, eight months in the womb, when he was murdered.
You were saying something about rights?

AllahsNippleHair on May 29, 2012 at 2:49 PM

What is your basis for this statement? Margaret Sanger?

spiritof61 on May 29, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Observably plain, stark reality.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 2:42 PM

You stated that a newborn has rights and the infant in the womb none. Your justification for this–which would justify not only abortion on demand right up to delivery but also partial-birth abortion–is “reality”?

I’ll give you a chance to retract or modify before I conclude you are Planned Parenthood.

spiritof61 on May 29, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Okay, then explain how Scott Peterson was convicted for TWO murders, one for Lacy Peterson, his wife, one for Connor Peterson, eight months in the womb, when he was murdered.
You were saying something about rights?

AllahsNippleHair on May 29, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Simple. They got it wrong. He violated the rights of only one individual. That’s enough to get executed in some states. Thankfully.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 2:55 PM

You stated that a newborn has rights and the infant in the womb none. Your justification for this–which would justify not only abortion on demand right up to delivery but also partial-birth abortion–is “reality”?

I’ll give you a chance to retract or modify before I conclude you are Planned Parenthood.

spiritof61 on May 29, 2012 at 2:52 PM

the newborn has rights because he/she is BORN, i.e. he’s an individual.

I’ve made no claim regarding partial-birth abortions. Make me a case for what that is, exactly. Is the baby born or not? It can’t be both.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Okay, then explain how Scott Peterson was convicted for TWO murders, one for Lacy Peterson, his wife, one for Connor Peterson, eight months in the womb, when he was murdered.
You were saying something about rights?

AllahsNippleHair on May 29, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Simple. They got it wrong. He violated the rights of only one individual. That’s enough to get executed in some states. Thankfully.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 2:55 PM

They got it wrong. Not you, right? You could never be wrong. Never. Nope, not you.
Translation: My logic is incorrect. So, I will just ignore this point. It doesn’t exist.

AllahsNippleHair on May 29, 2012 at 3:03 PM

They got it wrong. Not you, right? You could never be wrong. Never. Nope, not you.
Translation: My logic is incorrect. So, I will just ignore this point. It doesn’t exist.

AllahsNippleHair on May 29, 2012 at 3:03 PM

stop whining. tell me where I’m wrong. I’ve given you my view. I’ve offered my explanation. all you have to do is point out my mistake.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 3:06 PM

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Your position is identical with Sanger’s. Partial-birth means some part of the infant is still inside the mother–killing the partially-born is justified in the minds of PP trolls everywhere.

spiritof61 on May 29, 2012 at 3:07 PM

They got it wrong. Not you, right? You could never be wrong. Never. Nope, not you.
Translation: My logic is incorrect. So, I will just ignore this point. It doesn’t exist.

AllahsNippleHair on May 29, 2012 at 3:03 PM

stop whining. tell me where I’m wrong. I’ve given you my view. I’ve offered my explanation. all you have to do is point out my mistake.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Not whining, buttfish. Just pointing out that YOU didn’t give an explanation. You just said they were wrong. Clearly, sitting on death row for two murders says you are wrong.
Wrong.

AllahsNippleHair on May 29, 2012 at 3:10 PM

So, I will just ignore this point. It doesn’t exist.

AllahsNippleHair on May 29, 2012 at 3:03 PM

He’s stuck with that since page one when he stated he was happy with gender specific abortion technology.

cozmo on May 29, 2012 at 3:12 PM

spiritof61 on May 29, 2012 at 3:07 PM

All i did was ask a simple question and you want to tie me to some lady named Sanger. I doubt she sees this thing the same way I do. From what I heard she’s all about controlling population with abortion or something. That is a view NOT based on reality or the individual.

I don’t see how its possible to be “partially” born. There is a birth or there isn’t a birth. My view is that if the baby is born then hands off. very simple.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM

I don’t see how its possible to be “partially” born. There is a birth or there isn’t a birth. My view is that if the baby is born then hands off. very simple.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Then you are ignorant of the procedure and ought to educate yourself before ranting at others who are not ignorant.

cozmo on May 29, 2012 at 3:16 PM

AllahsNippleHair on May 29, 2012 at 3:10 PM

As cozmo on May 29, 2012 at 3:12 PM said, I’ve been posting my view here since page 1. If you’re interested in a conversation, check out what I’ve said and you’ll see my explanation(s).

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 3:17 PM

The problem with beselfish’s argument is that the subject of the exercise is the same one second before birth and one second after. It is logically absurd to think that location confers individual personhood (and a right to life). For example, a premature baby emerges at 7 months and immediately is a citizen with full rights and protections, but another can be aborted while in labor at 9 months–as long as a foot is still inside you can kill him on the spot.

Similar arguments can be used to knock off the mentally deficient, undesirables, etc. Kathleen Sebelius, have I got a staffer for you.

spiritof61 on May 29, 2012 at 3:19 PM

I don’t see how its possible to be “partially” born. There is a birth or there isn’t a birth. My view is that if the baby is born then hands off. very simple.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Then you are ignorant of the procedure and ought to educate yourself before ranting at others who are not ignorant.

cozmo on May 29, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Apparently, beselfish isn’t playing with a full deck. A few ants short of a picnic. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
An idiot.

AllahsNippleHair on May 29, 2012 at 3:19 PM

cozmo on May 29, 2012 at 3:16 PM

unbelievable. that’s exactly why nothing that I’ve stated have I related to that particular case. My only criteria is whether a birth has occurred or not.

whatev’s. you guys want to go with the talking points, I guess.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 3:22 PM

And how should we judge your zeal to eliminate welfare programs even in the face of evidence that they feed starving children? Christ-like?

libfreeordie on May 29, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Can a cow survive by feeding only on its own udder?

fossten on May 29, 2012 at 3:22 PM

AllahsNippleHair on May 29, 2012 at 3:10 PM

As cozmo on May 29, 2012 at 3:12 PM said, I’ve been posting my view here since page 1. If you’re interested in a conversation, check out what I’ve said and you’ll see my explanation(s).

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 3:17 PM

I asked you for further explanation of MY point to you about a baby in the womb not having rights, as you stated, gaining rights in a California courtroom in his death at the hands of his father, who was charged and convicted in his death. That, along with the wife’s murder conviction, put Scott Peterson on death row.
Apparently, an eight month baby in the womb HAS rights

AllahsNippleHair on May 29, 2012 at 3:23 PM

cozmo on May 29, 2012 at 3:16 PM

unbelievable. that’s exactly why nothing that I’ve stated have I related to that particular case. My only criteria is whether a birth has occurred or not.

whatev’s. you guys want to go with the talking points, I guess.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Facts. We go by facts.
You don’t even have enough brain cells to rub together to understand what happens during a partial birth abortion.
Bet you also didn’t know that when the current president was in the state senate in IL, he was a huge opponent to saving babies that survived a botched abortion.
But, that might be too much for your small mind.

AllahsNippleHair on May 29, 2012 at 3:27 PM

I don’t see how its possible to be “partially” born. There is a birth or there isn’t a birth. My view is that if the baby is born then hands off. very simple.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM

And if a baby is not born, then it is not a living human being, regardless of its state of development or if there is a technicality by which most of the baby is delivered but the head is still in the birth canal?

In short: head out, living human, head in, mindless clump of cells?

The Schaef on May 29, 2012 at 3:37 PM

listens2glenn on May 29, 2012 at 2:37 PM

.
I don’t think Roe v Wade refers to a simple definition of “individual” in order to justify abortion. From what I’ve read about it, Roe v Wade is poorly written law but, no matter. Treat the issue in terms of individualism for clarity. Abortion laws can be re-written, stifling a womans right to an abortion (selective-gender or not) can unjustly ruin her happiness for a long time.

beselfish
on May 29, 2012 at 2:49 PM

.
I disagree, but thank you for your honesty about your beliefs.

listens2glenn on May 29, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Wow! I hold the pro-life movement in contempt for habitual dishonesty, but even I am startled by the magnitude of the lying by theCork. Millions of dead adult women by infection in legal abortions? Really? And then there is the claim of documentation. Go right, theCork. Document this fantasy of yours!

thuja on May 29, 2012 at 2:41 PM

These may be legal abortions and sterilizations, but they’re not voluntary. The book “Merchants of Despair” quotes heavily primarily from government reports on this. Even the excerpt I’ll post below has a lot of references to these reports.

Read the section on India, Thuja. Do you support the ongoing genocide of the Dalit there?

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust

theCork on May 29, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Oh, NGOs are cited at the link above also, Thuja.

theCork on May 29, 2012 at 4:02 PM

What happened to the comment section?

cptacek on May 29, 2012 at 4:05 PM

AllahsNippleHair on May 29, 2012 at 3:10 PM

As cozmo on May 29, 2012 at 3:12 PM said, I’ve been posting my view here since page 1. If you’re interested in a conversation, check out what I’ve said and you’ll see my explanation(s).

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 3:17 PM

I asked you for further explanation of MY point to you about a baby in the womb not having rights, as you stated, gaining rights in a California courtroom in his death at the hands of his father, who was charged and convicted in his death. That, along with the wife’s murder conviction, put Scott Peterson on death row.
Apparently, an eight month baby in the womb HAS rights

AllahsNippleHair on May 29, 2012 at 3:23 PM

And apparently, according to beselfish, a wonderful opportunity to quash one of the convictions since it really isn’t a person and hence no rights. Just a clump of cells and how do you kill a clump of cells. If that’s the case, then every time some has their hemorrhoids removed there should be a trial, right? Just a clump of cells.

But I guess all the judges and lawyers in CA don’t know their business and Peterson should have hired beselfish because only he knows The Truth.

Or the easier explanation: The rules are fluid upon liberal needs and usage.

kim roy on May 29, 2012 at 4:17 PM

These may be legal abortions and sterilizations, but they’re not voluntary. The book “Merchants of Despair” quotes heavily primarily from government reports on this. Even the excerpt I’ll post below has a lot of references to these reports.

Read the section on India, Thuja. Do you support the ongoing genocide of the Dalit there?

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust

theCork on May 29, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Planned Parenthood is a United States organization. I see we were talking about different things.

Many things are terrible in the third world. In places like India and China human overcrowding makes living there much worse. I support reasonable efforts to control population. I oppose discrimination against any group of people. I would oppose the genocide of Dalit, if I thought such a thing were happening. But the ruling Indian political class would allow no such thing to happen.

Since you feel free to ask me if I support a genocide, I’d like to know if you support the death penalty for sodomy?

thuja on May 29, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Circular logic running amok.

Bmore on May 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Planned Parenthood is a United States organization. I see we were talking about different things.

Many things are terrible in the third world. In places like India and China human overcrowding makes living there much worse. I support reasonable efforts to control population. I oppose discrimination against any group of people. I would oppose the genocide of Dalit, if I thought such a thing were happening. But the ruling Indian political class would allow no such thing to happen.

Since you feel free to ask me if I support a genocide, I’d like to know if you support the death penalty for sodomy?

thuja on May 29, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Planned Parenthood is a United States organization in the same sense that Coca-Cola is a United States organization. It was started here, but it now has international reach and consequences. Fortunately, Coca-Cola sells beverages, not abortion and population control. Margaret Sanger’s eugenics program is alive and well serving under the auspices that there’s something inherently wrong about being born into a Third World country. Unlike the Catholic Church and Christian organizations which also teach respect and discipline, Planned Parenthood is out there to make a buck off of condoms and abortion overseas. Green for Red is their enterprise, and unlike the United States where one can expect the rule of law, in these nations Planned Parenthood can stick true to Sanger’s original intent for a world without inferior stock poisoning the earth with their progeny.

BKennedy on May 29, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Planned Parenthood is a United States organization in the same sense that Coca-Cola is a United States organization. It was started here, but it now has international reach and consequences. Fortunately, Coca-Cola sells beverages, not abortion and population control. Margaret Sanger’s eugenics program is alive and well serving under the auspices that there’s something inherently wrong about being born into a Third World country. Unlike the Catholic Church and Christian organizations which also teach respect and discipline, Planned Parenthood is out there to make a buck off of condoms and abortion overseas. Green for Red is their enterprise, and unlike the United States where one can expect the rule of law, in these nations Planned Parenthood can stick true to Sanger’s original intent for a world without inferior stock poisoning the earth with their progeny.

BKennedy on May 29, 2012 at 7:40 PM

I admire your ability at conspiracy theories. Could you tell how 9/11 happened?

thuja on May 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM

I hold the pro-life movement in contempt for habitual dishonesty, but even I am startled by the magnitude of the lying by theCork.

Which is a bizarre complaint, given that its PP being nailed for deception. Again. But that’s par for the course for those who find themselves defending PP at every cost.

As Christopher Browning pointed out in Ordinary Men, normal people have to go through a prolonged period of self-deceit to engage in horrible cruelty. The moral compass has to be conditioned away, as it were.

DRPrice on May 29, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Not whining, buttfish. Just pointing out that YOU didn’t give an explanation. You just said they were wrong. Clearly, sitting on death row for two murders says you are wrong.
Wrong.

AllahsNippleHair on May 29, 2012 at 3:10 PM

That’s a very good point.

Over the years, I’ve read news articles where, in some states, if someone injures a pregnant woman in such a way that it causes the baby to die (the woman miscarries), the man can be charged with the baby’s death (the baby in the womb). So it looks in some cases like the laws in some states treat the fetus/ unborn baby as though it’s just as human as the rest of us.

TigerPaw on May 29, 2012 at 8:48 PM

thuja on May 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Where is that wrong? Serious question. Proof if you have it.

ORconservative on May 29, 2012 at 8:54 PM

If you’re unable to stop weeping at the thought of an unwanted POTENTIAL individual, grow up and deal with reality honestly. Rights are for ACTUAL individuals. And hang up the religious mantra too- deal with REALITY!

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Abortion kills an ACTUAL individual, not a POTENTIAL individual.

Maybe you have it confused with CONTRACEPTION.

tom on May 29, 2012 at 9:08 PM

I see the pro-choice scum are hard at work. Your support is akin to that that stood by and watch the slaughter of innocents in Germany, Cambodia, Nam etc. The devalued and redefined life too. You better hope there is no God.

CW on May 29, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Individual – existing as a distinct entity, i.e . a separate entity. The fetus in the somb is not separate therefore it is at best a potential individual.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Americans don’t wan the government to be in charge of pregnancy.

That’s the goal of some, that’s always the goal, and it isn’t happening. Regardless of how they approach it.
…..
Moesart on May 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Yeah, no one’s buying that opposition to abortion on demand is “putting the government in charge of pregnancy.” It’s just a ridiculous argument. That’s like saying that laws against murder is “putting the government in charge of the funeral industry.”

tom on May 29, 2012 at 9:29 PM

CW your equivocation is weak. You want to defend the individualbut first one must know what an individual is dont u agree?

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Seriously, I don’t know where your zeal for killing babies comes from but you are not going to win the argument here by claiming it just makes sense to abort the unwanted babies to save public funds.

Happy Nomad on May 29, 2012 at 11:16 AM

And how should we judge your zeal to eliminate welfare programs even in the face of evidence that they feed starving children? Christ-like?

libfreeordie on May 29, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Starving children are only fed if the government does it?

Charity doesn’t count unless it’s funneled through Congress?

You’re building a straw man.

tom on May 29, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Individual – existing as a distinct entity, i.e . a separate entity. The fetus in the somb is not separate therefore it is at best a potential individual.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Separate brain. Separate heart. Separate mind. Separate personality. Able to respond to the sound of the mother’s voice. Separate blood supply. Separate fingers. The baby in the womb is a separate being attached by an umbilical cord. Even though borne in the mother’s womb, it is not part of the mother’s body.

Ergo, your whole argument fails.

And this is especially true if the baby is old enough that you can figure out the gender.

Which is where we came into this discussion.

tom on May 29, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Pretty good Tom. A beaver has a seperate brain from the mother too but its not a human individual. The fetus is not separate from the mother. Its not an individual

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Pretty good Tom. A beaver has a seperate brain from the mother too but its not a human individual. The fetus is not separate from the mother. Its not an individual

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 10:21 PM

It’s hard for a beaver to be a human individual. Being, you know, a beaver.

Not sure how that helps your argument. Babies aren’t beavers. Really. Check the science books if you don’t believe me. I think even Wikipedia gets that one right.

tom on May 29, 2012 at 10:29 PM

tom on May 29, 2012 at 9:52 PM

I agree the fetus has its own heart and brain, etc.. however an individual as in a human individual is a separate whole entity, right? It’s not just that our brains and heart and such are disinct and separate from one another its that as a whole human we are each individuated.

This is getting silly. it’s obvious what it means to be an individuated, separate, distinct isn’t it?

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Experts forward please: How can a “clump of cells = not a person” be determined to be male or female?

E-R

electric-rascal on May 30, 2012 at 12:13 AM

for those still following along- to disagree and say the human life growing in the mom’s belly is an individual is to say the mother cannot be an individual.

Part and parcel to being an individual is to be indivisible, i.e. NOT divisible. If you say the fetus is an actual individual, the mother is then divisible in terms of individuality(a contradiction) therefore NOT an individual which is, of course, absurd.

Reality is truth. Watch and observe it sometime. It just makes sense.

beselfish on May 30, 2012 at 1:28 AM

tom on May 29, 2012 at 9:52 PM

I agree the fetus has its own heart and brain, etc.. however an individual as in a human individual is a separate whole entity, right? It’s not just that our brains and heart and such are disinct and separate from one another its that as a whole human we are each individuated.

This is getting silly. it’s obvious what it means to be an individuated, separate, distinct isn’t it?

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 10:34 PM

A beating heart, and an active brain with its own brain waves. I just listed half a dozen ways that the baby is separate from the mother, even though in the mother’s womb. It’s quite obviously a separate being, even though tied to the mother through the umbilical cord.

The baby is its own individual, with its own DNA. This is basic biology. You’re better off trying to argue, “But it’s not really human.” Because if you’re going to try to argue that it’s just part of the mother, you’re already lost the argument.

tom on May 30, 2012 at 1:37 AM

for those still following along- to disagree and say the human life growing in the mom’s belly is an individual is to say the mother cannot be an individual.

Part and parcel to being an individual is to be indivisible, i.e. NOT divisible. If you say the fetus is an actual individual, the mother is then divisible in terms of individuality(a contradiction) therefore NOT an individual which is, of course, absurd.

Reality is truth. Watch and observe it sometime. It just makes sense.

beselfish on May 30, 2012 at 1:28 AM

You’re making a fool of yourself. If your argument that individual is defined as indivisible is correct, and the mother is indivisible, then giving birth makes the mother no longer an individual because she has divided the baby from herself.

You can’t possibly argue that the baby one hour before birth is substantially different from the baby one minute after birth.

You’re just defining your terms in such a way as to justify abortion. We humans call this, “rationalization.”

tom on May 30, 2012 at 1:45 AM

I would oppose the genocide of Dalit, if I thought such a thing were happening. But the ruling Indian political class would allow no such thing to happen.

Since you feel free to ask me if I support a genocide, I’d like to know if you support the death penalty for sodomy?

thuja on May 29, 2012 at 5:30 PM

No, of course not.

The political class of India did encourage targeted involuntary sterilization of the Dalit often resulting in deaths among the women who were cut up. That’s historical record, beyond argument.

PP has been involved in these overseas one-child policies. Here’s a link to one of them: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/international-program/india-country-program-19007.htm

They are not just a US organization, Thuja. OBVIOUSLY. They are wherever a money can be made off their gruesome trade.

theCork on May 30, 2012 at 6:23 AM

You’re making a fool of yourself. If your argument that individual is defined as indivisible is correct, and the mother is indivisible, then giving birth makes the mother no longer an individual because she has divided the baby from herself.

You can’t possibly argue that the baby one hour before birth is substantially different from the baby one minute after birth.

tom on May 30, 2012 at 1:45 AM

More concise for you- at any point in pregnancy, to say the mom possesses an actual individual inside her makes her divisible, i.e. the mom is NOT an individual. So, which is it? She cannot be an individual and not be one at the same and under the same conditions? Answer; of course, the mom is an individual. What she is carrying is not (until its born, of course).

Regarding your second point, I’ve not once quantified nor do I plan to quantify the magnitude of difference that exists before and after birth. That there is a difference is all I’m saying and all that is needed.

beselfish on May 30, 2012 at 6:35 AM

What’s new here? Murder? Nope, been doing that all along. Eugenics? Nope, PP’s hero helped launch it. Deceit? Nope, been in PP’s playbook since day one. Fraud? Probably not but now its confirmed.

END ALL PP FUNDING, PERIOD!

insidiator on May 30, 2012 at 8:07 AM

I admire your ability at conspiracy theories. Could you tell how 9/11 happened?

thuja on May 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Bush did it, obviously.

But seriously, your flippancy is tiresome. You’re either a) truly historically ignorant of Sanger’s place in history as a eugenicist who founded Planned Parenthood specifically towards targetting the poor, minorities, the disabled, and other people she deemed unfit or b) exceedingly duplicitous and feigning ingnorance for no discernable reason other than it suits your socio-political prefences.

I can correct a), I can’t do anything about b).

No conspiracy theory needs be involved. Planned Parenthood supports one-child policies worldwide. It’s entire overseas message is that children are burdens, Michelle Malkin’s site has more than a few posts on this if you go looking.

BKennedy on May 30, 2012 at 8:33 AM

for those still following along- to disagree and say the human life growing in the mom’s belly is an individual is to say the mother cannot be an individual.

Part and parcel to being an individual is to be indivisible, i.e. NOT divisible. If you say the fetus is an actual individual, the mother is then divisible in terms of individuality(a contradiction) therefore NOT an individual which is, of course, absurd.

Reality is truth. Watch and observe it sometime. It just makes sense.

beselfish on May 30, 2012 at 1:28 AM

What is this? Theology?

Reproduction happens when one individual creates more. This is the main fallacy of the pro-abortion lobby when they say a woman has a right to her own body. Yes, but in this case, there are two or more bodies. And the abortionist has to believe that one body has rights when the others do not. If the baby has a right to its own body, should we kill the mother?

The answer is that we should not take the life of either. Abortionists know this but seek the cover of synthetic arguments to cover what is brutality.

virgo on May 31, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4