What Do You Think of the Videos That Have Exposed Planned Parenthood?
Alan shares his thoughts on the Planned Parenthood videos.
Comments
Yes.
Unfortunately, something else that came from these videos was the increased number of times the following question was asked of our pro-life politicians and presidential candidates:
“Do you believe in exceptions in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother?”
Chuck Todd, George Stephanopoulos, Megyn Kelley, Jake Tapper, and all the rest all pound this question home…again, and again, and again.
Here we have grisly video after grisly video that should horrify our nation (that doesn’t get a fraction of the air time it deserves) and that’s the question that pro-lifers have to answer?
How many times will we hear the following question this election cycle:
“Do you believe that all abortions are acceptable even late- term abortions? In other words, is there any abortion that you believe should be restricted up until delivery?”
What these videos should do, God willing, is expose the deadness in our culture to this madness. This topic more than any other is where you can see how dead our consciences have become in this nation. Even Nazis did not allow infanticide for their people, much less making a market of it. Sadly, many of our churches here in America are lukewarm on this issue. I'm a protestant but I give the Catholics credit, they stand on the front line about this. I stand with them. You should, too.
Now I’d appeal to your ability to read. I never said abortions weren’t restricted (no thanks to pro-abortion politicians).
My point, which should’ve been clear to anyone reading, was the double standard.
Democrats are never asked the question I mentioned. Democrats routinely take positions that are out of the mainstream. Tough questions go both ways.
Now to your question:
Is there any abortion that you believe should be legal?
When it has been medically determined that the mother could likely die. I’m not making the case that my position is mainstream. I am of course, making the point that the media protects those that are fine with abortion until the baby is well under the warming lamp.
"Actually, abortions are restricted based on gestational age."
Not so fast RonH...dont let this bit of wordsmithing get you off track KWM. There are no abortion restrictions at any stage when the health of the mother is considered to be at risk. I'll just sit back and let your imagination run wild as you define health of the mother in the loosest of terms.
There currently are no restriction prohibitions at any stage of developement for an abortion if one is determined to pursue that action steadfastly enough.
That's another thing - our country is so lawless, powerless, and weak that we can barely investigate when documented felonies have been confessed. Our pres decides to politicize and minimize it and this industry scoffs at partial birth abortion bans. Then they demand we continue to subsidize it! Finally, they have the audacity to irresponsibly claim the videos are fraudulent without any real scrutiny, and refuse to meet the people at any halfway point for resolution. Cruz for President and God have mercy.
I'll just sit back and let your imagination run wild as you define health of the mother in the loosest of terms.
I'm trying to figure you why you would say this.
Do you say that because you think a threat to the woman's health should never be a factor because the definition of "a threat to the woman's health" can be stretched?
Would you allow "a threat to the woman's life" to be a factor?
Would you ever allow gestational age to be a factor?
KWM,
medically determined that the mother could likely die
To get from that to something useful from this, you have work to do.
Medically determined. By whom?
Could likely die. How likely? When?
What if our best estimate is that the woman runs a 50% risk of dying within a year of giving birth?
Health of the mother has been construed as stress added. Stress financially, emotionally, and even just the stress of unexpected pregnancy because of change in current family dynamic.
As to determinate factors, "life should be protected" is the overriding principle. Life in the womb is valuable...more valuble than comfort or other temporary circumstantial factors that cause life experience crisis' that continually are encountered as people live out their lives.
There are alternatives to killing unwanted humans in the womb.
Let's be honest here also...the miniscule percentage where legitimate serious health or life threatening ciecumstances occur is being leveraged to open abortion as convenience procedure. Some are not just pro choice but are pro abortion in the most strict sense of the term.
The pro abortion crowd have been given favorable media treatment and still are although the prolife arguments are carrying a fair bit of sway in the war for the truth.
Hi RonH, I cared a lot more for your threshhold when you were as a 5day old conceptus than I do now, that is until the threat to your life is as clear and present as it is for those in the womb today.
btw...this is not a view I just prefer, it is the view that is imposed on me by a higher authority and be force of logic.
Speaking of abortion, I am still waiting for your response on the below linked post on Planned Parenthood. Don't think I forgot how deliberately singled me out and posted what you did to me, personally.
Don't think I have forgotten how you ignored me every time I asked you about it.
Know that you've done this in public. Other people saw it and responded.
Most importantly, know that you did it before Christ, and you will give account for it one day.
Below is the exchange, as well as the link to the post:
Monstrous beyond words.
And people are STILL openly and proudly supporting it!
Posted by: Mo | August 20, 2015 at 07:55 AM
Mo, yep. Just went monthly with my support.
Posted by: RonH | August 20, 2015 at 08:19 AM
@ RonH
"Mo, yep. Just went monthly with my support."
Is the fact that you support (both morally and financially) the murder/dismemberment of infants and the sale of their body parts meant to shock me? Is that why you directed your comment specifically to me?
Is the fact that you boldly post your support for infanticide on a Christian website supposed to shock us?
Hint: I’ve already communicated this question on this thread.
Another Hint: Just because you clumsily attempt to answer this question doesn't mean that it will pressed by the media of our Democratic candidates. Which is the point I'm making. I'm making a media point.
Yes.
Unfortunately, something else that came from these videos was the increased number of times the following question was asked of our pro-life politicians and presidential candidates:
“Do you believe in exceptions in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother?”
Chuck Todd, George Stephanopoulos, Megyn Kelley, Jake Tapper, and all the rest all pound this question home…again, and again, and again.
Here we have grisly video after grisly video that should horrify our nation (that doesn’t get a fraction of the air time it deserves) and that’s the question that pro-lifers have to answer?
How many times will we hear the following question this election cycle:
“Do you believe that all abortions are acceptable even late- term abortions? In other words, is there any abortion that you believe should be restricted up until delivery?”
Never. We will never hear it.
Fair and balanced.
Posted by: KWM | November 09, 2015 at 11:26 AM
KWM,
Actually, abortions are restricted based on gestational age.
Posted by: RonH | November 09, 2015 at 03:33 PM
Is there any abortion that you believe should be legal?
Posted by: RonH | November 09, 2015 at 04:38 PM
What these videos should do, God willing, is expose the deadness in our culture to this madness. This topic more than any other is where you can see how dead our consciences have become in this nation. Even Nazis did not allow infanticide for their people, much less making a market of it. Sadly, many of our churches here in America are lukewarm on this issue. I'm a protestant but I give the Catholics credit, they stand on the front line about this. I stand with them. You should, too.
Posted by: Josh Reynolds | November 09, 2015 at 06:06 PM
RonH,
Now I’d appeal to your ability to read. I never said abortions weren’t restricted (no thanks to pro-abortion politicians).
My point, which should’ve been clear to anyone reading, was the double standard.
Democrats are never asked the question I mentioned. Democrats routinely take positions that are out of the mainstream. Tough questions go both ways.
Now to your question:
When it has been medically determined that the mother could likely die. I’m not making the case that my position is mainstream. I am of course, making the point that the media protects those that are fine with abortion until the baby is well under the warming lamp.
Posted by: KWM | November 09, 2015 at 07:26 PM
Not so fast RonH...dont let this bit of wordsmithing get you off track KWM. There are no abortion restrictions at any stage when the health of the mother is considered to be at risk. I'll just sit back and let your imagination run wild as you define health of the mother in the loosest of terms.
There currently are no
restrictionprohibitions at any stage of developement for an abortion if one is determined to pursue that action steadfastly enough.Posted by: Brad B | November 09, 2015 at 08:32 PM
That's another thing - our country is so lawless, powerless, and weak that we can barely investigate when documented felonies have been confessed. Our pres decides to politicize and minimize it and this industry scoffs at partial birth abortion bans. Then they demand we continue to subsidize it! Finally, they have the audacity to irresponsibly claim the videos are fraudulent without any real scrutiny, and refuse to meet the people at any halfway point for resolution. Cruz for President and God have mercy.
Posted by: jreyn | November 10, 2015 at 05:43 AM
States do restrict abortion.
They can't prohibit altogether - Roe.
Let's say that's true.
Do you see the difference between that and this?
Posted by: RonH | November 10, 2015 at 09:04 AM
I'm trying to figure you why you would say this.
Do you say that because you think a threat to the woman's health should never be a factor because the definition of "a threat to the woman's health" can be stretched?
Would you allow "a threat to the woman's life" to be a factor?
Would you ever allow gestational age to be a factor?
KWM,
To get from that to something useful from this, you have work to do.Medically determined. By whom?
Could likely die. How likely? When?
What if our best estimate is that the woman runs a 50% risk of dying within a year of giving birth?
Posted by: RonH | November 10, 2015 at 09:25 AM
Health of the mother has been construed as stress added. Stress financially, emotionally, and even just the stress of unexpected pregnancy because of change in current family dynamic.
As to determinate factors, "life should be protected" is the overriding principle. Life in the womb is valuable...more valuble than comfort or other temporary circumstantial factors that cause life experience crisis' that continually are encountered as people live out their lives.
There are alternatives to killing unwanted humans in the womb.
Posted by: Brad B | November 10, 2015 at 10:32 AM
Let's be honest here also...the miniscule percentage where legitimate serious health or life threatening ciecumstances occur is being leveraged to open abortion as convenience procedure. Some are not just pro choice but are pro abortion in the most strict sense of the term.
The pro abortion crowd have been given favorable media treatment and still are although the prolife arguments are carrying a fair bit of sway in the war for the truth.
Posted by: Brad B | November 10, 2015 at 10:42 AM
And you don't accept any of those interpretations as 'legitimate'.
And if you don't think the threat to my health is legit, then I can't have the abortion.
So, describe to my just what threat pregnancy has to pose to my health before you will allow me to have an abortion.
And what if I have a different threshold?
How do we decide together just what level of health threat is sufficient?
Does the threshold depend, in your view, at all on gestational age?
Posted by: RonH | November 10, 2015 at 12:57 PM
Hi RonH, I cared a lot more for your threshhold when you were as a 5day old conceptus than I do now, that is until the threat to your life is as clear and present as it is for those in the womb today.
btw...this is not a view I just prefer, it is the view that is imposed on me by a higher authority and be force of logic.
Posted by: Brad B | November 10, 2015 at 01:20 PM
Does the threshold depend, in your view, at all on gestational age?
Posted by: RonH | November 11, 2015 at 03:41 PM
As Francis Beckwith quoted Dr. Seuss in "Politically Correct Death"..."a person's a person no matter how small".
Posted by: Brad B | November 11, 2015 at 09:38 PM
Thank you Brad B.
Posted by: RonH | November 12, 2015 at 08:32 AM
When will Democrats get tough abortion questions this election cycle?
Answer: Never
This is so significant to the national debate. Pro-lifers always work with one hand tied behind their back.
Posted by: KWM | November 12, 2015 at 11:31 AM
What's the question KWM?
Posted by: RonH | November 13, 2015 at 07:24 PM
@ RonH
Speaking of abortion, I am still waiting for your response on the below linked post on Planned Parenthood. Don't think I forgot how deliberately singled me out and posted what you did to me, personally.
Don't think I have forgotten how you ignored me every time I asked you about it.
Know that you've done this in public. Other people saw it and responded.
Most importantly, know that you did it before Christ, and you will give account for it one day.
Below is the exchange, as well as the link to the post:
Monstrous beyond words.
And people are STILL openly and proudly supporting it!
Posted by: Mo | August 20, 2015 at 07:55 AM
Mo, yep. Just went monthly with my support.
Posted by: RonH | August 20, 2015 at 08:19 AM
@ RonH
"Mo, yep. Just went monthly with my support."
Is the fact that you support (both morally and financially) the murder/dismemberment of infants and the sale of their body parts meant to shock me? Is that why you directed your comment specifically to me?
Is the fact that you boldly post your support for infanticide on a Christian website supposed to shock us?
If so, why? If not, then why bother?
Posted by: Mo | August 20, 2015 at 05:22 PM
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/08/the-seventh-planned-parenthood-video-ordinary-everyday-evil.html
Posted by: Mo | November 14, 2015 at 06:58 PM
RonH,
Could little pro-abort you are.
Hint: I’ve already communicated this question on this thread.
Another Hint: Just because you clumsily attempt to answer this question doesn't mean that it will pressed by the media of our Democratic candidates. Which is the point I'm making. I'm making a media point.
Posted by: KWM | November 16, 2015 at 09:45 AM
That was a disaster of a comment above.
Let’s try this again:
I’m making a point about media bias as it relates to abortion. It’s the one issue that bias is so evident, you'd have to be crazy not to see it.
Posted by: KWM | November 16, 2015 at 12:42 PM