Shame on us, indeed.

CAUTION - This link contain seriously disturbing video: Source

------------------------
Carly Fiorina, CNN Republican presidential debate, September 16, 2015:



Ms. Fiorina was referring to a Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) video depicting a few seconds of a 17-½ week fetus, still alive and moving, following an intact-delivery abortion. Here we post the entire unedited video. The total running time is approximately 13 minutes and the video is in five segments as the camera operator turns the camera on and off.

CBR and the Center for Medical Progress, in whose undercover Planned Parenthood investigative video the CBR abortion footage appears, have been falsely accused of misrepresenting a miscarriage as an abortion. The first segment of the unedited video depicts the abortion itself, with the baby delivered alive and struggling in the abortionist’s gloved hand. Segments 2 and 3 depict the baby still moving in a stainless steel pan after repeatedly being handled abusively by the abortionist. Segments 4 and 5 are static gynecological shots of the baby’s mother.

This unedited version of the disputed footage proves incontestably that this termination is an abortion. Mothers at risk of miscarriage present at hospitals, not abortion clinics. Hospitals are in the business of sustaining pregnancies and saving babies. Abortion clinics are in the business of terminating pregnancies and killing babies. This video depicts a termination and the subsequent abuse and neglect of a preemie obviously delivered alive. No attempt is made to provide the neonatal intensive care a hospital would extend to a wanted baby. It is possible that the abortionists performing this termination violated both state and federal law by withholding care from a baby who survived an abortion.

Ms. Fiorina made reference to a baby’s heart still beating while its brain was being harvested (a process which Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services calls “digging”) and a former StemExpress “procurement technician” says, “I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think” (National Review, August 19, 2015). The article adds that “… her StemExpress supervisor instructed her to cut through the face of the fetus in order to get the brain.”

The unedited version of this abortion depicts an intact-delivery termination and Planned Parenthood partner StemExpress admits through its CEO (Cate Dyer), “Oh yeah, if you had intact cases, which we’ve done a lot, we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety …” (The Daily Signal, August 21, 2015).

A World Magazine article, August 19, 2015, describes “… an aborted baby’s beating heart, a post-abortion occurrence that’s not uncommon, according to Ben Van Handel, executive director of Novogenix Laboratories.”

Ms. Fiorina’s characterizations are not hyperbole.

The terms of our abortion clinic access agreements explicitly forbid us from disclosing any information which could identify the abortion providers from whose clinics we obtain imagery. Dates, locations, affiliations and staff and patient information are confidential. Violating these prohibitions could subject CBR to legal liability and jeopardize clinic access for current and future projects. We are even obligated to delete the audio track on all of our videos.

The Grantham Collection is a component of the CBR abortion imagery archive. Questions related to this very disturbing video should be directed to Gregg Cunningham, [email protected], 949-206-0600.

Addendum: Medical malpractice lawsuits have become so common that OB/GYNs practice defensive medicine. They protect themselves by over-diagnosing, over-treating and over-prescribing. No doctor delivering this baby as a preemie in a hospital would fail to provide neonatal intensive care. Even if he had no compassion for the baby or his parents, he would provide care to avoid being sued for negligence. Warren Hern, in his book Abortion Practice, warns of the difficulty in estimating fetal ages. A baby moving as vigorously as this one is presumptively entitled to care and would receive it — unless the attending physician is an abortionist, which is the case here.

Miscarried embryos and fetuses are virtually all stillbirths involving a baby who expired in the uterus and was later born dead. A preemie in a hospital is born alive and given intensive care — not slapped around in a pan as happened here with a baby who survived the abortion depicted at the beginning of the video.

I wish someone would tell me again how advanced our civilization has become.

"Am I the only one" who's neck is getting sore from shaking my head in disbelief?

"Advanced civilization" indeed....god help us.

I can't bring myself to watch it .

There aren't many issues that have a stronger effect on me than this. It makes me shiver to even think of this. Blows my mind.

Nor can I. Literally makes me queasy thinking about it.

"Carly Fiorina Was Right" again

Bump for the afternoon crowd

I'm still in disbelief that someone would actually wake up in the morning, take a shower, eat breakfast and then drive to a job such as this..........and NO, I ain't watching the video.

What is seen can not be unseen. I'll take your word for it.

Happening every day, at a "health" clinic near you. Welcome to America!

Complete BS. Carly never saw any video showing what she said it did because no such video exists. She's a damn liar.

The baby killin' gun grabber is back!

Abortion is MURDER....period!!!

GFY.

Fiorina rightly points out the issue raised by these videos has nothing to do with whether or not women should have the right to an abortion: these videos depict the aborting of fetuses essentially for the purpose of harvesting their body parts. If this is not barbarism, what is?

The implication is this video was done at a Planned Parenthood facility, but it wasn't.

I don't understand why so many think it's OK to lie about things like this, while claiming how "morally superior" you are.

http://time.com/4053578/abortion-carly-fiorina-planned-parenthood/?xid=homepage





http://time.com/4055143/abortion-carly-fiorina-planned-parenthood-2/



Anyone who claims they heard "We have to keep it alive so we can harvest the brain" either lied, or has been duped.

Fiorina rightly points out the issue raised by these videos has nothing to do with whether or not women should have the right to an abortion: these videos depict the aborting of fetuses essentially for the purpose of harvesting their body parts. If this is not barbarism, what is?

Originally Posted by Dixie_Rebel

Abortion is MURDER....period!!!

That would be Supreme Court sanctioned and protected murder.

kwg

Rubbish. Go ahead, support Chainsaw Carly. Truth doesn't matter to her, she's all about self promotion. Just ask HP employees. Real team builder, she is.

This has been going on since 72.

The body parts have to be accounted for after any abortion.

Listen to how intrenched, and how insensed this generation has become.

Your future leaders.






Not a fan of the host. However, the vedios speak for themselves.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Seriously. The video exists and a link has been posted for your viewing pleasure.

I cant/wont watch it but you obviously need to.

Grab some pop corn and enjoy a-hole.

You know that's not true, so why even try to BS everyone?

Those abortions will be done no matter what happens to the fetuses.

You should learn to accept it's really none of your business.

Have you watched the video?

Snyper, I really do think you might be sick. For openers, such an abortion is murder of an innocent, and that IS barbarous in and of itself. Really - can you in your mind justify such a murder - and why can it be fine and unavoidable on the basis of "no matter what happens to the fetus"? Is it your position that there has been and is no harvesting of body parts from aborted babies - even some born alive and killed in the process of collecting their parts - as noted by Fiorina? And, when did murder of innocents, and then taking a profit from their body parts, become "none of your/my business"? To whom is the "business" limited and on what basis do you arrogate to yourself the decision about whose business it is?

CCCC, you and your ilk; the NRA, the hard right Republicans in the House, those who distort the truth and lie like Fiorina, are everything that's wrong with America today.

I'd read that the baby in the video was stillborn but was presented as aborted.

Paddler you are one sick puppy.Where the hell do people like you come from.

This is where you and snyper belong.

Integrity matters, sadly the CMP, the Grantham collection, and Fiorina all fall short.

You diddling kids whilst taking dog cock in your ass is what is wrong with this country.

Facts matter, integrity matters. You have none.

How many sandwiches can ya make?
Can ya say " soylent green"?

See?
We're goin' green...

Good bread good meat good God let's eat!

And, no.
I won't watch the video, too.

Don't do no good to paddle his ass.
Hed just enjoy it....

And call ya phellow phag and smile after.

They're all sick.
And their ain't no cure.

Don't do no good to paddle his ass.
Hed just enjoy it....

And call ya phellow phag and smile after.

They're all sick.
And their ain't no cure.

Watch the video. It makes it clear that the baby was NOT stillborn. Far from it, actually. What you read was a lie.

No babies are stillborn during a partial birth abortion. The doctor deliveres a live baby to the point that its head emerges.

While the head is in his hands, he plunges a pair of sizzors or hymostats into the back of the babies spine near the base of the skull to open a channel.

All the while the baby struggles...untill the fatal blow...at which point the baby goes limp.

The doctor then sucks the brains from the dead child.

Congress sent legislation banning this form of birth controll for then president Clinton to sign into law.

Clinton vetoed that legislation either two or three times during his tenior.

The videos are out. But the barbarism has been going on for a long time.

I'm shocked that people are just beginning to take note of the horror that is the pro-death movement.

I hope it is not too little...too late.

Because of the liberal bias of the media, very little indepth reporting has been done.

10 to 1 odds that the recient shootings will silence what little reporting has occured.

The masses are being controlled.

I just read a statistic tha said that 75% of Americans get 90% of their information from traditional news outlets.

I fear gun control will bury this issue for a signigicate portion of the populace.

One might suggest that a pattern is emerging. But, perhaps that seems way to synical.

Complete BS. I try to be polite, but you really are delusional.

No.

To be polite you sprinkle pepper and garlic powder as you're grilling up the meal.

"complete BS"

That is what you refer to as trying to be polite?

Well I'll be 'polite' in your fashion...

you're 10 pounds of hog manure in a 2 ounce sack....

yeah that will fit...

So which statements exactly are BS?

Here are the facts:

Partial Birth Abortion
Editor's Note: Please visit our home page for a full listing of abortion facts.

Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse from Dayton, Ohio, assisted Dr. Haskell in a Partial Birth Abortion on a 26-1/2 week (over 6 months) pre-born baby boy. She testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee (on 11/17/95) about what she witnessed.

According to nurse Shafer, the baby was alive and moving as the abortionist “delivered the baby’s body and arms - everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby’s head just inside the uterus. The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp.”

Partial Birth Abortion Step 1

With forceps, the doctor turns the baby around in the womb to be positioned feet first. The baby’s legs are pulled out into the birth canal. The baby is alive at this point.




Partial Birth Abortion Step 2

The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head, which remains inside the birth canal. The baby’s hands and feet move.




Partial Birth Abortion Step 3

The abortionist stabs the scissors into the base of the baby’s skull. The scissors are spread to enlarge the opening. The suction catheter is then inserted and the brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The head slides out easily.




Are the babies alive during the abortion?

Yes! On July 11, 1995, American Medical News (AMA’s official journal) submitted the transcript of a tape-recorded interview with abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell to the House Judiciary Committee in which he admitted:

...the majority of fetuses aborted this way (partial birth abortion) are alive until the end of the procedure.
Is this type of abortion rare?

Before the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, back when this type of procedure first became public knowledge, those defending it said it was only done a few hundred times a year. Then Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers admitted on ABC’s “Nightline” (11/95) that he had lied when he asserted the procedure was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger. The reality is, this gruesome method of killing partially born babies was done many thousands of times a year. Abortionist, Dr. McMahon, admitted in 1995 to performing over 2,000 partial birth abortions.

Are they only performed on severely deformed babies?

That is what the abortion industry would like you to believe. But Dr. Haskell said in a tape recorded interview with the AMA’s American Medical News:

...and I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective (not medically necessary) in that 20-24 week range ... In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.
An article in the L.A. Times (8/28/96) listed some of the medical reasons for this type of abortion. They included cleft palates, cystic hygroma, (both easily corrected problems) and cystic fibrosis. The medical conditions present in the mother that warranted this type of abortion were, “depression, chicken pox, diabetes, vomiting ...” In other words, even those partial birth abortions that are done for the “health of the mother” or because of a “defective fetus” are often performed for minor, easily correctable conditions.

Dr. C. Everett Coop, former U.S. Surgeon General, stated:

... in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly can’t be a necessity for the baby.
Is this type of abortion ever done on third trimester babies?

Yes. While most babies are in their 20th to 24th week when aborted in this manner, babies are aborted as late as the ninth month! This was admitted to by abortionist Dr. McMahon who, in 1995, submitted to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee a graph and explanation that showed he aborted healthy babies even in the third trimester!

As disturbing as this sounds, these are the facts. In this country medical doctors were partially delivering babies and then killing them.

These babies are inches from being born. Many could be born and placed directly in the loving arms of childless couples for adoption. Instead, they are cruelly killed.

Some call this abortion. No matter what you call it, you cannot alter the reality - 4 more inches out of the womb and this act would be called murder.


More facts:

Partial-birth abortions banned in the U.S.

Partial-birth abortions are finally banned in the United States

The partial-birth abortion procedure — used from the fifth month of pregnancy and later – involves pulling a living baby feet-first out of the womb, except for the head, then puncturing the skull and suctioning out the brain. The great majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy babies for entirely non-medical reasons.

Throughout the 1990s, pro-lifers were busy educating the public on brutal partial-birth abortions. Many states, like Nebraska, were passing bans on partial-birth abortions during that era. Congress also had approved national bans on partial-birth abortion in 1996 and 1997. Unfortunately, President Bill Clinton vetoed both bans. This didn’t stop pro-lifers in their efforts to put an end to such a gruesome abortion procedure.

The Stenberg v. Carhart case decided in 2000 by the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortions unconstitutional on the basis that it didn’t include a health exception.


The abortionist punctures the base of the baby's
skull in the brutal partial-birth abortion procedure.
In 2003, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Signed by President George W. Bush, the ban was immediately challenged in federal court. Arriving at the U.S. Supreme Court for a second time, the partial-birth abortion ban was once again in the spotlight, garnering much attention due to the gruesome and inhumane procedure which it was attempting to ban. On April 18, 2007, the Court handed down its decision in the Gonzales v. Carhart case. Proving to be a huge win for the pro-life community/movement, the decision validated extending protection for unborn babies and women by upholding the ban on brutal partial-birth abortions while allowing the exclusion of a health exception. For the first time, we were able to ban an abortion procedure because of its gruesomeness, inhumanity, and lack of medical necessity.


All Things Possible: Changes in the Court

The only difference between the Court’s decisions in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) and Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) was the Court’s membership. Since 2000, President George W. Bush, with confirmation from the Senate, was able to appoint two life-affirming justices: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. Going against precedent, the Court reversed its ruling in the Stenberg decision in 2000, reminding America that the Court at any time can reverse a decision from cases past. This exercised ability illustrates the importance of electing presidents who, when making nominations and appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, are committed to choosing judicial nominees who will support life.

Although there were setbacks along the way, it was the pro-life community’s tenacity and commitment to the decade-long charge to ban brutal partial-birth abortions that enabled such a victory to occur. Coupled with the all-important changes in the Court’s membership, this involvement on the part of pro-lifers across the country and here in Minnesota allowed for assurance to be granted that no unborn child in the United States shall be subjected to such an inhumane and brutal procedure.

I'm not watching the video


I also don't watch ISIS videos.

Keep paddling' paddler.

Paddler, what you post here shows that you are so simple-minded and grossly sick - it seems almost mean to put the spotlight on you. You have zero knowledge of me, what I am and that for which I stand - yet you are so rotten and devoid of ethics that you dare proclaim your nonsense. And, you do that with almost anyone without reservation.

I've lived long enough, and have paid sufficient attention to human behavior, to know that - when this country was acting sensibly - we took delusional, self-possessed sickos like you out of the normal population and locked them in padded rooms. Our "psych experts" are not smart enough to do that anymore and, instead, try to control nut cases like you with drugs. Your drugs are not working and you are exposing your naked sickness on a forum where most are disgusted by such behavior. That's about the nicest thing one can say about you. To say that your persona is ugly would be an insult to those who appear to be ugly.

I've heard all that mindless rhetoric before, so you're just parroting the same tired lines.

You sound like the anti gun crowd with all the emotional BS

It is none of your business what others doing just because you don't happen to like it.

Which part of that is hard to grasp?

Abortions are legal and if it's not your body it's not your choice.

You should be happy they can be used for researh rather than just being tossed in an incinerator

Murdering of innocent people IS my business.

Only a sicko concludes otherwise.

I bet you're one of those who likes to rant about "rights" and "freedom" (unless it's in reference to anyone with whom you disagree).

Silly pictures don't take the place of intelligent arguments

No one is "murdering innocent people"
Why is it your business what anyone else does?

If you cannot see this, you are firmly in the grip of evil.

The fully formed child (with all of its fingers and toes, nose, mouth, ears, etc.) that was delivered in that video that I just watched, came out moving its arms and legs. Then it was placed in a cold, stainless steel basin (it received NO supportive treatment...as ALL wanted children do, from the healthcare staff there) and it was left there to die. During that time (while layin' in that basin), someone was flippin' it's head and body around with a pair of forceps. They were handlin' that child pretty rough.

Hard to imagine that Mengle and the rest of the Nazi's could show any more callousness for a human life than the people in that video did.

Trying to have an intelligent argument with you is silly,which you have proven in the past.

I've read enough of your posts to see you're just another arrogant "holier than thou" hypocrite who is all for rights and freedom as long as it meets your personal approval.

You think anyone who doesn't agree must be "sick" or "a nut case"

You're delusional if you think all that matters to anyone besides yourself.

Reality is the majority of Americans want abortions to be legal, and it's none of your business if it's not you having one.

Says the one who thinks a toilet picture is an intelligent response. I understand if it's the best you can do.

Wow.

Yanking a kid out of it's mothers womb, which should be the safest place on Earth for a kid, throwing it in a tub and harvesting it's tissue doesn't strike you as the least bit immoral?



I'm afraid I need to tell you to GFY.

Last comment here:

Justice for your ilk, snyper, would be to be disemboweled, alive, while those watching told you it was none of their business.

I guess it would be OK if people wanted it.

All the "supportive treatment" in the world won't save a 17 week old fetus.

There has never been one that survived at less than 21 weeks.

Lose the emotional BS and Nazi rhetoric and go with reality

You don't get to dictate "morals" for anyone other than yourself

That's what ISIS does

As for the "GFY", I don't care if childish profanity is how you show your "morality".

It means nothing at all to me

You seem confused about reality, since what you suggest is actually murder and therefore illegal, while abortions are neither of those things.

I bet it's not your last comment either.

You're just on the wrong side of this thing and you seem pretty entrenched. Look inward to find some clarity.

Carly Fiorina Was Right About bringing this issue back to the front of the debate.

You're entitled to your opinion.
I think you are wrong, and so do the majority in the country, contrary to what some here claim.

You have no right to force your beliefs on anyone at all

Telling me to "look inward" after the "GFY" only shows how disingenuous you really are

Pull the chains on chit for brains.
Seems to me a fitting pictoral commentary.
Too bad the aroma lingers...

Actually, the majority of Americans agree that late term abortion, for any reason, is wrong. That is why we should pass the pain capable unborn child protection act.

Oh maybe it does. It wasn't that long ago that I thought exactly like you do about it.

Yup.

The one in the video wasn't "late term" under the current definitions.

Late term is anything beyond 20 weeks, when the fetus actually has a chance of survival

"Pain capable" makes no difference when they can't survive at less than 21 weeks, and even then it's about 50/50

No one agrees it's wrong "for any reason".

I don't know why you think I'd believe that people would rather let the mother and child both die than to do an abortion to save the mother

If you thought "exactly as I do" you wouldn't have changed your mind.

You'd realize it's not your choice to make.

Hold it now, The kid getting yanked out of the womb and getting it's skull caved in and tissue harvested didn't have a 'choice', you phuggin maroon.

Ghost,you're wasting your time.

You put a two year old out in this world by itself with no help and it will not live long either.It must not be a child then,the way you define it.

Snyper - you were asked clear, simple questions about your positions and bases. You did not answer even one. Instead, you rant and try to insult. I make no assumptions about the rest of your existence or your ethical makeup otherwise, but on this issue the evidence says that you are sick - and useless to those applying intellect and conscience in this matter

Too bad Snypers mom didn't want an abortion !!

Actually, guys, the video was a fake, put together by an anti abortion group. Carly lied about seeing the video she described because no such video exists. Abortion is legal in this country, get over it. Planned Parenthood, in a very small number of clinics, carries out the woman's wishes to donate tissue for research. They collect administrative fees ranging from $30 to $100 for processing said tissue. PP has been investigated in about six states, all of which have found no evidence of wrongdoing. These are the facts of the case. The take home message is that abortion is legal, Carly's a damn liar, and even my own Congressman Chaffetz got sucked in. Pretty funny if you watched the hearing, he made a complete fool of himself. Any questions?

What reason do you have for defending the murder of babies?

Actually SansSouci/Laguna/Raisuli/Paddler, the video has been proven to be authentic.

Im sure he knows, thats just the way they are.Keep telling the lie till it becomes the truth.

You should look inward to quell your hostility at not being able to control the world.

The mother gets the choice, not you, not anyone else

You're applying your superiority complex and nothing more.
You have no right to make moral decisions for anyone else

You insult and pontificate, then whine when you feel insulted

I really don't care if you like that reality or not.

So at what age should we start making it immoral to kill their own children?

Can the mother kill them because she chooses to, until say... start first grade?

At some point, taking responsibility needs to kick in.

Link

Phil

The profit, or not, is a total red herring.

Abortion is killing another human, and we all know it. The question becomes if it is ever justified.

Why can't we simply stay focused on the real issue at hand?

Hear this - you don't get to define reality for me or anyone else - and you most likely wouldn't recognize reality if it flew up into your elevated nose. Obviously you don't know the difference between a "superiority complex" (check yours, fella) and a conscientious individual asking very direct questions. Those little questions appear to be too embarrassing, or too difficult, for you to answer.

You can't twist this one - even with your "complex". I pushed no moral decisions at you and don't do that with others - but do ask questions on serious moral topics. You were asked to state your moral positions on the very serious topic above. You refuse to do so. Does that indicate that you are immoral, or amoral?

I don't define anything. The laws have already done that.

Too bad you couldn't think of an original response !!

Even the laws that state when you kill a pregnant woman, you are guilty of not one, but two murders?

I made no assumptions about you either, and you continue to labor under the impression I somehow care what you think about me.

You just like pretending you're somehow superior, and want to be in control, and anyone who disagrees must be sick or stupid.

Save your feigned indignation and accept the fact it's not your job to make choices for anyone other than yourself

If I'm "sick and useless", then don't reply to me.
I don't care one way or the other.

You understand it was the same kind of law that marched Jews into the gas chambers,they were not human either.Come to thing of it nobody took up for them,well people like you didnt.

You don't get to choose to terminate her pregnancy, but she can.

The laws on assault don't negate abortion laws.

Not all laws make perfect sense, and no one has to agree with them all.

Either way, you don't get to force your views on anyone else.

Isn't that what laws, and any form of regulation is... forcing compliance on other people?

The gays and radical racial groups sure have carte blanche with forcing theirs on us.

The issue at hand is more about what we as a society find acceptable, and condone as a society.

You gotta draw the line somewhere.

Don't confuse Snyper with the real facts. He has his own.

You can look up the current laws instead of asking stupid irrational questions.

Also, laws have nothing to do with "morality", and your only resposibility is to worry about what you do, not what others do

No, that was illegal, as in "war crimes"
And Nazi comparisons aren't very original either.

No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion, and you can't force anyone to not get one if they want.

Gays (and Nazi's and stupid toilet pictures) have nothing to do with this topic

"Society" chose 40 years ago to make abortions legal, and that is what the majority wants.

For snyper.












For everyone else.

Nice radishes!

I know,just about fainted when I seen them.

If you don't care, why do you continue to attempt to defend your warped posts, and yourself? It appears that you cannot deal with simple moral inquiries straight up. The apparent personal revulsion you experience when considering such questions seems to be what causes your nasty responses. I stand by the basis for every question asked of you here, and form my observations simply on your replies. That's where "sick" shows up.

On the other hand, you seem compelled to post uninformed and very inaccurate assumptions about others of us here, and your consistency reveals much. That "much" is not good. Rather than state nasty defensive assumptions about your motives and agenda - as you constantly do about others - one can rely on you to reveal yourself. As far as interaction with you on this thread is concerned, it seems time for me to stop.

Per normal, I will leave you with an inquiry or two. In that you continually attempt to justify the murder of innocents by merely stating something like - "it's legal and it's none of your business" - in your mind and conscience where does morality enter this matter - how does what is "legal" stand up to what is "moral" with regard to the murder of innocent babies? Here is one more - who make you the king of deciding what is the "business" of other folks?
Bye.

Which part of "I don't care" compelled you to continue preaching?

You aren't "the King of deciding what is the business of others" either".

Worry about your own "morals" and work on that desire to control everything while pretending you're better than anyone else

I always pegged you as a liberal. Even called you on it few times, which you denied at the time.

Decide to let your true colors shine through, Buttercup?

There will be a special hell for folks who can even remotely defend what goes on in that video, for any reason. A slow burn.....

I find blatant dishonesty to be morally objectionable.

Carly Fiorina and the still nonexistent abortion video

Am I supposed to be upset because you want to assign some silly label to me?

I believe people should be free to make their own choices without a lot of BS from anyone else.

Call it anything you want
I really don't care.

You do realize that's not a real place?

It's just one more example of one wanting to force their beliefs on another.

Good luck with that

No one is forcing you to believe anything. Drama queen.

Good luck with THAT cause you'll need it...

I don't give a crap what you believe or not believe. Killing babies isn't about beliefs or religion but I'm sure you'll have some rehearsed phamphlet answer for this too....

Exactly, so the idea that everyone who doesn't agree with him will be eternally punished is ridiculous.

I said "wanting", not "achieving".

Snyper is in denial.

I suspect Snyper believes in nothing, so denial is pretty meaningless.

I have never killed a baby, and I have no idea why you think I need good luck if you're not still talking about your religion

I believe in letting people live their own lives and make their own choices without having a lot of fanatics dictate what they should think, do, and feel.

The ones who won't admit they just want control are the ones in denial

How about child molesters.Do they get to do what they want.

Laws are control.

They are both restrictive and protective.

The first enailable right is the [right] to "life"

Then "liberty"

Then the "pursuit of happines."

An aborted baby is denied all three.

Apparently....in the eyes of some.... the bundle of Constitutional protections doesn't kick in until your head is outside the birth canal. Or your handlers decide to leave you to rot in a SS tub.You're "born",but your protections are denied by some doctor. What twisted minds dream this stuff up?

This country is morally bankrupt.People who believe this sort of thing is OK are animals.

One only need to read the founders statements to put this in perspective:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams

You answered your own question.

Paddler is a strong argument FOR abortion...

Two issues that I do not even toy with the proposition that someone experience them.

One is Hell.

The other is abortion.

Shame on you for suggesting that...even in sarcasm.

Are you really that stupid, or is it just that you can't think of anything intelligent to add?

Those aren't laws.
You have no right to dictate what others do
It's that simple

That's what EVERY law does...it dictates what others do or do not do.

Try to order your next firearm from a distributor without having a FFL. The law dictates that you cannot do it.

It's that simple.

Is there a point there somewhere?
YOU don't get to dictate
YOU , not "laws"

Civil diobediance has proved to be a successful tool when the courts get it wrong. It has been used thoughout our nation's history.

It will be interesting what your response will be to sheriffs who refuse to enforce an exective order on guns/ammo.

You are the one in denial.You spit foolishness out one side of your mouth about not telling people how to live then you turn around and and say its stupid not to tell people how to live.The reason for laws is to control peoples actions.We dont allow molesting children,we dont allow driving drunk ect.You claim abortion is legal,that does not make it acceptable any more than gassing millions of Jews was acceptable just because it was the law of the land.If you take just a few seconds to think about what you are saying you would shut up.

So you can protest by not having an abortion.

Sheriffs have nothing to do with Executive Orders

They deal with laws, and EO's are for for Federal Govt employees

But that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread

So, none of the vehement Fiorina supporters have addressed this bit yet?

Snyper, you say no one has the right to tell others what to do,right.So any behavior is acceptable to you,right.Everybody should be able to live their life the way they choose.Is this what you are saying.

Protesting by not having an abortion does nothing to change bad law...a law that nullifies the first principle of our Republic.

Eric Holder refused to argue before the SCOTUS for a LAW passed by congress (DOMA). He even forbade his subordinates to defend it. Did you feel the same outrage toward him?

Something to concider:

Roe v. Wade — which ruled that the U.S. Constitution effectively mandates a nationwide policy of abortion on demand — is one of the most widely criticized Supreme Court decisions in America history. As Villanova law professor Joseph W. Dellapenna writes,

“The opinion [in Roe] is replete with irrelevancies, non-sequiturs, and unsubstantiated assertions. The Court decides matters it disavows any intention of deciding—thereby avoiding any need to defend its conclusion. In the process the opinion simply fails to convince.”

Even many scholars sympathetic to the results of Roe have issued harsh criticisms of its legal reasoning. In the Yale Law Journal, eminent legal scholar John Hart Ely, a supporter of legal abortion, complained that Roe is “bad constitutional law, or rather … it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” He wrote:

“What is unusual about Roe is that the liberty involved is accorded … a protection more stringent, I think it is fair to say, than that the present Court accords the freedom of the press explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-a-vis the interests that legislatively prevailed over it. And that, I believe … is a charge that can responsibly be leveled at no other decision of the past twenty years. At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.”

Below are criticisms of Roe from other supporters of legal abortion.

“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” — Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard law professor

“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose. … Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the … years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.” — Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun

“The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations. … Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.” — Archibald Cox, Harvard law professor, former U.S. Solicitor General

“[I]t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result. This is not surprising. As a constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.” — Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania law professor

“Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the Court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

“In the Court’s first confrontation with the abortion issue, it laid down a set of rules for legislatures to follow. The Court decided too many issues too quickly. The Court should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges.” — Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago law professor

“Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy). … [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present [in Roe].” — Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor

“[O]verturning [Roe] would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary. … Thirty years after Roe, the finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself.” — Jeffrey Rosen, legal commentator, George Washington University law professor

“Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.” — William Saletan, Slate columnist, writing in Legal Affairs

“In the years since the decision an enormous body of academic literature has tried to put the right to an abortion on firmer legal ground. But thousands of pages of scholarship notwithstanding, the right to abortion remains constitutionally shaky. … [Roe] is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.” — Benjamin Wittes, Brookings Institution fellow

“Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching.” — Michael Kinsley, columnist, writing in the Washington Post.

Paul Stark is a Communications Associate for Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, NRLC’s state affiliate.

I think that Snyper believes in something. I believe he has a moral code.

I have, however, come to the conclusion that the first and governing code is: "reject Christianity...outright."

Moral code:

1. Take an anti-Christian stance by default.

2. Repeat anti-Christian stance in any discussion.

3. When confronted by a well articulated argument for Judeo-Christian ethics...repeat 1 and 2 with more veracity.

4. Continue with 1, 2, 3, and 4 until the discussion digresses to disrespect...on either side. At that point, no common ground will be found, the topic becomes unproductive, and at that point victory can be claimed by default.

If you need more; I got plenty...

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina was right when she said an undercover video shows an intact baby's leg twitching after an abortion, according to the pro-life group that shot the video.

The former Hewlett-Packard CEO has come under fire since saying at the last presidential debate, "I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says, ‘We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.’” Numerous outlets accuse her of lying, some going so far as to say none of the footage she described exists.
Fiorina is referring to a scene included in the seventh video released by the Center for Medical Progress.

The baby seen in the footage at the 5:56 mark was indeed taken from inside an abortion clinic, according to the owner of the footage. Gregg Cunningham, executive director of The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, the organization that obtained the footage and provided it to CMP, said “The video clip we provided to CMP depicted an intact delivery abortion. It was filmed at an abortion clinic."

At another point in the video, CMP included a clip of a baby who was stillborn at about the same gestational age, for a means of comparison. Some pro-abortion activists had accused Fiorina of falsely claiming that this baby was aborted.
However, she was actually referring to footage of the baby whose leg was kicking, who was indeed an abortion victim, according to Cunningham.

"It was not a miscarriage. Mothers don’t go to abortion clinics to miscarry," he said.
[...]
Her Super PAC, Carly for America, released a video last week showing the CMP's outtake.

Nonetheless, the issue came roaring to the surface last Saturday, when a group of Planned Parenthood protesters pelted Carly Fiorina with condoms, chanting that she was a liar.
On Sunday, Meet the Press host Chuck Todd asked Fiorina if she were ready to admit she "exaggerated" the scene, which "at best is a reenactment.

Instead, Fiorina tripled down.
“That scene absolutely does exist," she said, referring to the baby's twitching leg.
"And that voice saying what I said they were saying - ‘We're going to keep it alive to harvest its brain’ - exists, as well,” she said.

To date, none of the footage released shows a tech uttering that exact sentence. However, a former StemExpress employee Holly O'Donnell describes seeing a baby's heart beating outside its body sometime before she cut its face open to harvest its brain. It was her first day on the job.

[...]
Fiorina defended herself this week. "Many in the mainstream media have tried their best to pretend that these videos don't exist. They repeated the talking points from Planned Parenthood that told them there was no footage of an aborted baby at all. Now that it's clear the video is of an aborted baby left to die in a metal tray kicking for life, they are calling it...stock footage."

Gassing the Jews was never "legal" which is why it was kept hidden. All your rambling about "laws" has nothing at all with some trying to dictate morality and religion.

There are no laws forcing anyone to have an abortion if they don't want one, and it's none of your business who does it.

YOU don't get to decide what is "acceptable" for anyone other than yourself. It's a really simple concept you can't seem to grasp. I haven't made any laws at all.

Not one Jew was ever 'gassed' during WWII. It's been proven beyond ALL doubt to be nothing but bad Jewish propaganda in order to secure Palestine. Anyone with an iq above room temp and an open mind can figure it out in about two hours if they'd actually look into it. That's a subject for a different thread however.

You have been shot down so many times on this issue...

Oh.....my....gawd! I hear cuckoo clocks going on all around me. Crazy.

But notice the "morality" (immorality actually) that you are forcing on unborn children who clearly feel excruciating pain upon in utero dismemberment. And notice further the "morality" you are forcing on the rest of us who you require to accept (to stand by and watch, if you will) the butchery of children in utero.

And calling names is no substitute for argument. How 'bout you answer his question instead of trying to evade it with name calling?

Here's the real deal on Carly. She's a bald faced liar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4yeuPT2ZQs

I never said "any behavior is acceptable"
I said you don't get to dictate anyone's behavior regarding legal activities, and you don't get to decide what is "moral" for anyone other than yourself.

You're the one who keeps bringing up illegal activities and pretending I said something about them

Good Lord. You are stupid nutcase. Please get back on your medication before you become a statistic.

Just because you think it's a "bad law" doesn't mean you're right. It just means you want to control others.
It doesn't take a page full of quotes to say nothing.

Just because you think it's a "bad law" doesn't mean you're right. It just means you want to control others.
It doesn't take a page full of quotes to say nothing.

Doctors who have seen the original video said it could have very well been a miscarriage, and that there was no sound on the video, so the "keep it alive" BS is just that....BS

It was a 17 week fetus that couldn't have possibly survived no matter what anyone did, and your "proof" is still just they hype from anti-abortion activists

Overview of Court Rulings

At what point is there a "compelling state interest" in a pregnancy?

There's no evidence they can feel any pain at the ages at which most abortions are performed.

You don't have to "accept" anything other than it's none of your business what other people do regarding abortions.

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything at all.

That wasn't name calling.

It was an observation that most of his posts have been mindless

I haven't noticed you reprimanding all the other "name callers" and you just called someone Cuckoo yourself.

It's not a law. It's a decree by a supreme court that was out of control and not in a Constitutional position to legislate. It is null and void for any real American.

Video boosted by Carly Fiorina looks like miscarriage, not abortion – experts



Full disclosure of where and when this video was taken would be nice...

"It was not a miscarriage. Mothers don’t go to abortion clinics to miscarry,"

With disclosure we would know for sure.

Did you read the Guardian article by chance? There are a number of clues that this video wasn't really taken an abortion clinic.

Whose disclosure? Which side of the argument?


The baby seen in the footage at the 5:56 mark was indeed taken from inside an abortion clinic, according to the owner of the footage. Gregg Cunningham, executive director of The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, the organization that obtained the footage and provided it to CMP, said “The video clip we provided to CMP depicted an intact delivery abortion. It was filmed at an abortion clinic."

At another point in the video, CMP included a clip of a baby who was stillborn at about the same gestational age, for a means of comparison. Some pro-abortion activists had accused Fiorina of falsely claiming that this baby was aborted.
However, she was actually referring to footage of the baby whose leg was kicking, who was indeed an abortion victim, according to Cunningham.

"It was not a miscarriage. Mothers don’t go to abortion clinics to miscarry," he said.

Sigh...

Snyper, NeBassman, nice posts. Just remember you're talking to angry old white guys who want to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. The entire PP dustup has been manufactured by the antiabortion crowd. They have to lie about PP or they'd have nothing to say. It's disappointing to see a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination increase her polling numbers by lying. Very strange, but so is the Repulican base. They don't care about facts, or the Constitution, it's just a war on a woman's right to choose.

Finsh the sentence. That would be ....choose to murder their baby. That's no right. That's a nation dying a certain and horrible death.

Nope, it's a constitutionally protected right to choose. Mind your own uterus.

Do you have children?

Abortion is an ugly choice, a very ugly choice, but a choice none the less irregardless of the current legal status. With that said I am disheartened by the number of so called conservatives calling for big government intruding into peoples personal lives and deciding what is best for them.

IMO the best way champion both individual freedom and life is to reduce the number unintended pregnancies, it's that simple. Supporting fact based sex education with an abstinence message along with making access to affordable birth control would go a long ways in reducing the number of abortions in this country.

No one is lying about Planned Murderhood! It is NOT about a "woman's" right. It is about the murderous killing of unborn BABIES. And let's forget about the fathers of those unborn babies, what about their rights to the child?

Those women choose to have sex and conceive babies! If they don't want children they don't have to have sex or unprotected sex.

It is a horrible soul that can know what abortion does to an unborn baby and not be totally disgusted by this heinous act. God will judge and hold all of those accountable if they don't repent and ask forgiveness!

I completely disagree. Clearly, the overwhelming number of people (99%) having babies know EXACTLY how they are conceived! Pregnancy is their choice...killing babies shouldn't be their choice!

I don't understand the selfish decision to kill her own baby rather than allow to live under someone else's roof.

Adoption, the third choice.

Another vote for BIG government and a total lack of understanding of what has been adjudicated over the years, sigh...

Here is a good example of what we could do to reduce the number of abortions in this country.

Colorado’s Effort Against Teenage Pregnancies Is a Startling Success

Show it to me in the Constitution. You can't. Hint: it's not in the Bill of Rights either.

All the empty rhetoric won't change the fact it has the same effect as a law, and made abortions legal in all states.

Pretending it's "null and void" is only fooling yourself

We have a long history of atrocious laws that made bad stuff legal. Way past time to correct this terrible wrong.

First of all, the only "proof" it was an "abortion clinic" is the word of an anti-abortion activist. No one really knows where it was.

Secondly, with abortions done that late, it's entirely possible for a miscarriage to occur during the dialation portion of the procedure.

Medical clinics perform lots of procedures and treatments, so pretending they did nothing but abortions is unrealistic, since you don't know where it was at all.

Long history...

There's a Long History of Republicans Supporting Planned Parenthood

If you take an honest look at the demographics, they will either be aborted or end up on welfare and then be killed on the streets or end up in prison.

How many are you willing to adopt if you won't let the mothers choose? How many do you have now?

Of course they "know how they conceived".
That's elementary biology.

But over half of unwanted prgnancies are from failure of the birth control method used. They didn't "choose" to get pregnant, but even if they did, it's none of your business.

That way of thinking was really popular in Germany at one time.

Prove the statement that has been bolded.

Most recent information I could find.

http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/contraception-journal/september-2008

So lame Nazi comparisons is all you've got?
What I stated is reality.
It's mostly low income minority women who get abortions.

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/01/11/report-shows-contraception-failure-54-used-before-abortion/
It's actually 54%

http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/contraception-journal/september-2008

According to this report, it is only a 5% failure rate.

Lame comparison? Have you honestly examined your stance. You are justifying the death of an individual on the grounds that they would be born into a socioeconomic group that is undesirable. Kill them before they get a chance to draw from our resources, sounds an awful lot like extermination to me, and that we should be talking about rats not humans. Multiple times you talk about the pro life people here wanting to take away individual rights, what exactly do you think it is you are proposing? Except in your mind you are getting rid of the undesirables before they "legally" have any rights. That legality is built on a shifting foundation and you know it, it could be changed tomorrow. Our stance stands on basic human understanding.

God bless,

MM

Would pro-abortion sources lie?

There is a difference between lying and being mistaken, one is a blatant attempt to deceive, the other is not.

Regarding contraception use and unintended pregancies:


Added together, that is 48% failure rate using contraceptives with the bulk of it being attributed to user error.

It contradicts itself in the next paragraph:



Also "improper use" is still a "failure of BC", since they still didn't "intend" to get pregnant.

Finally the smoke clears. Margaret Sanger could not have said it better.