Is Planned Hamburger more important than the entire good of America?

[michigancat]

"the media" have shared plenty of full videos of cops murdering people.

[Dugout DickStone]

So like, some people say "this issue is decided, it has been for a long time.  Abortion is legal, so give up."

I'm wondering if they feel the same way about 2nd amendment rights to firearms, which seem pretty well ingrained too.

I'm assuming you are asking this question to people advocating for the abolishing of the 2nd amendment, and I have to ask, who the hell is doing that?

I'm asking that question to people who want to limit others' constitutionally protected (and reinforced by recent, explicit supreme court caselaw) right to bear arms.

My only point is that it's lame to cite established Supreme Court decisions as an argument for others to give up fighting a perceived injustice.  I could just have easily used Dred Scott as an example.

But in this case your comparison is flawed. Professed "pro-lifers" want Roe v. Wade abolished, over turned. Gun control advocates aren't advocating for all guns to be banned in all cases like pro lifers want with abortion. Sure there are people advocating that we melt every gun in America but that's an extremist view, not held by anyone posting here. Pro choice supporters like gun control advocates recognize the constitutional right of both but identify the need for laws to regulate each. Gun rights advocates push back on regulatory laws, as do pro lifers.

I did a word search of the constitution for "privacy" and "abortion." My search function must not be working right. It did find a pretty clear provision on the right to bear arms, though.

Now add "regulated" and "militia" to your search

[Trim]

People can decide for themselves whether it has been edited in a misleading way.

Yes.  Their eyeballs, their choice.

[mocat]

Also I watched one of those videos and it didn't change my opinion.

This thread is really long, someone posted that the videos are heavily edited and misleading, right?

Yes, I think K-S-U mentioned that the media edits videos all the time.

That, and the full length undercover vids are made available online, which is more than the media would ever provide for any if its video productions. It is an extremely stupid talking point peddled by - who else? - the media. Yes, it's been explained. See my halftime scorecard of stupid arguments around page 4.

"it's not edited/doctored at all! and even if it is, that's what 'the media' does all the time anyway!"

Did I ever say it wasn't edited? Of course they're edited! That's what happens when you take hours and hours of video and have to cut it down to something people will actually watch. The full videos are also produced, which is better than the media ever does. People can decide for themselves whether it has been edited in a misleading way.

stuff has not just been removed. stuff has been added in, in an attempt to deliberately mislead the viewer. is that ok too because "the media" does it?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

"the media" have shared plenty of full videos of cops murdering people.

Not their own videos. The media is generally quite protective of its own product.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Planned Infanticide hired a "media forensics firm" - Fusion GPS, which normally does oppo research for political campaigns - to analyze some of the videos. You can find their report online. They concluded that the videos were edited - well duh, of course they've been edited. They also noted a few bits of audio that they're not sure were correctly transcribed. This was enough for PP to hand the report to its media surrogates to gin up some favorable headlines. But they also said the "analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation...." They also said there was “no evidence of audio manipulation.”

Hell, the videos are mostly time stamped so you can tell when time has been cut.

[renocat]

The questions are simple is a fetus meat or developing and growing human?  Is the selling of body parts of aborted babies so important that Obama will veto the funding bill and shut down all of the vital functions of government?    I would add that at msn news there is a good article about how some states are prosecuting mothers who use drugs and harm their baby.  These laws recognizes the personhood of the baby.  Why two different standards?

[mocat]

when organ donors die, is it ethical to perform medical research on their tissue/organs?

[8manpick]

Why do people care what happens to the tissue once it isn't living? Dead old people, ex-fetuses, car accident victims, whatever.  So weird.

[MakeItRain]

Why do people care what happens to the tissue once it isn't living? Dead old people, ex-fetuses, car accident victims, whatever.  So weird.

God told them its bad

[MeatSauce]

Planned Infanticide hired a "media forensics firm" - Fusion GPS, which normally does oppo research for political campaigns - to analyze some of the videos. You can find their report online. They concluded that the videos were edited - well duh, of course they've been edited. They also noted a few bits of audio that they're not sure were correctly transcribed. This was enough for PP to hand the report to its media surrogates to gin up some favorable headlines. But they also said the "analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation...." They also said there was “no evidence of audio manipulation.”

Hell, the videos are mostly time stamped so you can tell when time has been cut.

you put the ellipses on the wrong end of the actual quote.  CMP did too, so prob not your fault.

Fusion GPS outlined 42 instances in which CMP edited out content from the short as well as so-called full versions of the tapes, several of which were secretly recorded. The company also identified instances in which context was eliminated, minutes of film were deleted and transcripts released by CMP did not match what was said on the tapes.

The report concludes that the degree of manipulation means the videos have no "evidentiary value" in a legal context, can't be used in "official inquiries" and lack credulity as journalism. Those findings are a direct response to CMP's arguments in court -- while fighting efforts to prevent it from releasing more video -- that it is protected by the First Amendment.

But the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no "widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.

[sys]

Why do people care what happens to the tissue once it isn't living? Dead old people, ex-fetuses, car accident victims, whatever.  So weird.

the fetuses never signed the backs of their licenses.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Why do people care what happens to the tissue once it isn't living? Dead old people, ex-fetuses, car accident victims, whatever.  So weird.

the fetuses never signed the backs of their licenses.

The parents did. Are parents able to designate their children as organ donors after birth? I'm assuming they can, but honestly have no idea.

[MakeItRain]

day gonna use dem stem cells to make new people an dats gods job 

[mocat]

[SdK]

The questions are simple is a fetus meat or developing and growing human?  Is the selling of body parts of aborted babies so important that Obama will veto the funding bill and shut down all of the vital functions of government?    I would add that at msn news there is a good article about how some states are prosecuting mothers who use drugs and harm their baby.  These laws recognizes the personhood of the baby.  Why two different standards?

Because one grows up. One doesnt.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Why do people care what happens to the tissue once it isn't living? Dead old people, ex-fetuses, car accident victims, whatever.  So weird.

The fetuses are alive until they are killed in the womb by the doctor, and in some cases killed outside the womb if they did a poor job.

[sys]

so, with very cursory googling, it's a lot easier to find info on the impact of maternity leave on women's salaries than on salaries in general.  i'm sure there is info out there, i just didn't come across it.

these following would indicate that employers attempt, to the degree they are able, to compensate the childless (and male parents) for their greater efforts at work compared to mothers who take maternal leave.  if they are perfectly able to so, the childless do not subsidize parents.



http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/20/the-link-between-parental-leave-and-the-gender-pay-gap/

Budig’s research shows that childfree, unmarried women earn 96 cents for every dollar a man earns, while married mothers earn 76 cents, and a woman’s pay goes down with the addition of each child.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/complete-without-kids/201411/why-dads-earn-more-and-moms-earn-less-the-childfree

[michigancat]

so, with very cursory googling, it's a lot easier to find info on the impact of maternity leave on women's salaries than on salaries in general.  i'm sure there is info out there, i just didn't come across it.

these following would indicate that employers attempt, to the degree they are able, to compensate the childless (and male parents) for their greater efforts at work compared to mothers who take maternal leave.  if they are perfectly able to so, the childless do not subsidize parents.



http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/20/the-link-between-parental-leave-and-the-gender-pay-gap/

Budig’s research shows that childfree, unmarried women earn 96 cents for every dollar a man earns, while married mothers earn 76 cents, and a woman’s pay goes down with the addition of each child.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/complete-without-kids/201411/why-dads-earn-more-and-moms-earn-less-the-childfree

Interesting. Although that does look like a pretty weak correlation. I also wonder how unmarried childless women compare to unmarried childless men.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

So like, some people say "this issue is decided, it has been for a long time.  Abortion is legal, so give up."

I'm wondering if they feel the same way about 2nd amendment rights to firearms, which seem pretty well ingrained too.

I'm assuming you are asking this question to people advocating for the abolishing of the 2nd amendment, and I have to ask, who the hell is doing that?

I'm asking that question to people who want to limit others' constitutionally protected (and reinforced by recent, explicit supreme court caselaw) right to bear arms.

My only point is that it's lame to cite established Supreme Court decisions as an argument for others to give up fighting a perceived injustice.  I could just have easily used Dred Scott as an example.

But in this case your comparison is flawed. Professed "pro-lifers" want Roe v. Wade abolished, over turned. Gun control advocates aren't advocating for all guns to be banned in all cases like pro lifers want with abortion. Sure there are people advocating that we melt every gun in America but that's an extremist view, not held by anyone posting here. Pro choice supporters like gun control advocates recognize the constitutional right of both but identify the need for laws to regulate each. Gun rights advocates push back on regulatory laws, as do pro lifers.

I did a word search of the constitution for "privacy" and "abortion." My search function must not be working right. It did find a pretty clear provision on the right to bear arms, though.

Now add "regulated" and "militia" to your search

Yup - those words are there, too! But why can't I find those rights to sodomy, abortion, birth control, and privacy? I must be looking at an outdated version of the Constitution.

[SdK]

Right to sodomy? What are you talking about?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Why do people care what happens to the tissue once it isn't living? Dead old people, ex-fetuses, car accident victims, whatever.  So weird.

the fetuses never signed the backs of their licenses.

Nice. Well, that and the fact that several of the videos indicate that Planned Parenthood is profiting off the sale of the aborted babies, thereby giving them an incentive to provide more abortions. What evidence? For starters, Planned Parenthood claims it only charges its cost for shipping and preparation of the "specimens," but the price varies significantly by "specimen." Apparently, baby heads are primo. Who knew? That's where the real money is - the heads. 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Right to sodomy? What are you talking about?

Google Lawrence v. Texas.

[Trim]

Just grilled a turkey burger.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Planned Infanticide hired a "media forensics firm" - Fusion GPS, which normally does oppo research for political campaigns - to analyze some of the videos. You can find their report online. They concluded that the videos were edited - well duh, of course they've been edited. They also noted a few bits of audio that they're not sure were correctly transcribed. This was enough for PP to hand the report to its media surrogates to gin up some favorable headlines. But they also said the "analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation...." They also said there was “no evidence of audio manipulation.”

Hell, the videos are mostly time stamped so you can tell when time has been cut.

you put the ellipses on the wrong end of the actual quote.  CMP did too, so prob not your fault.

Fusion GPS outlined 42 instances in which CMP edited out content from the short as well as so-called full versions of the tapes, several of which were secretly recorded. The company also identified instances in which context was eliminated, minutes of film were deleted and transcripts released by CMP did not match what was said on the tapes.

The report concludes that the degree of manipulation means the videos have no "evidentiary value" in a legal context, can't be used in "official inquiries" and lack credulity as journalism. Those findings are a direct response to CMP's arguments in court -- while fighting efforts to prevent it from releasing more video -- that it is protected by the First Amendment.

But the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no "widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.

Thank you for including that additional information on the report, but nowhere does it say that any of the edits were misleading. It simply identifies a lot of time cuts (well duh - that's editing), and says that the video have no evidentiary value because of the edits. Again, that doesn't mean the videos were edited in a misleading way - just that the edited versions would not be admissible in a court of law. Again, that's obvious, but irrelevant. Ultimately - and here's the important part - the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no "widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.

Despite this conclusion, the media painted a very different picture of Planned Parenthood's paid report, which appears to have mislead folks like Mocat into believing that the edited videos are actually misleading.