Pelosi to Receive Planned Parenthood Award Honoring Eugenicist

You and some others do not seem to know the difference between a fetus and a baby so claiming I failed is laughable at best.

 

Quote Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
No it is baby just go down to your local shopping mall and stop and ask all the pregnant women is that their baby or their fetus in there.

Or you can check the American Hertigage Dictionary

n. pl. ba·bies
1.
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.

I know your position must be very distasteful but you don't get to change the definitions of words. I don't know how I would live with myself if I was pro-abortion and the killing of babies.

Your failure to address my rebuttal noted.

Lack of rebuttal noted again, you don't get to make up your own definitions for words around here and then claims others are wrong no matter how distasteful it makes your position.

I'd also offer you the challenge of meeting at a busy shopping area to walk through the crowd and we ask every pregnant woman we see if that is a baby or a fetus in there and every time the answer is fetus I give you $100 and every time the answer is baby you give me $100. Who do you think would come out the richer?

 

I almost hate to admit this, but I had a brief fling with Nancy Pelosi.

It was more than a few years ago. Right around 1997 I think.
I flew into Washington/Reagan for a few days, to check my records at Stovall Street prior to my next military assignment.

I got off the plane, and used the restroom down by the Smithsonian store.
Sitting in the TGIFridays bar was Nancy, and one or two of her Congressional aides.
She was nursing a Tanquerey & tonic, and stewing in her own juices, or so it appeared to me.

Her buddy Bill Clinton was up to his neck in the whole Monica Lewinsky business, and she was pissed off at her Party’s leader/current sitting President.

Just hours earlier, Linda Tripp had encountered Kathleen Willey coming out of Oval Office "..disheveled. Her face red and her lipstick was off.". Willey later alleged that Clinton groped her. Tripp was, as it turns out, taping conversations in which Lewinsky detailed her alleged affair with the president.
Nancy Pelosi had her spooks inside the Oval Office, and clearly they had been keeping her abreast of the situation. She was upset, and sloppy drunk on moderately-priced gin.

I made eye contact, we got together and began drinking, and she summarily dismissed her aides.

We ended up in the Watergate Hotel, of all places, and spent a day and a half in the throes of a listless and detached passion.
The room service was great, I remember that much. Just about the time we were ready for a fresh bottle of gin, they would also bring a steam tray loaded with scrambled eggs, bacon, toast, and decaf coffee.

I won’t bore you with the details of the sex. She had a fine body, and small, pert breasts.
In between bouts of some seriously frantic lovemaking, we mostly just dozed and slept.

Okay, she slept. I was a bit of an insomniac, so I spent many hours with a naked Nancy Pelosi curled up asleep on my arm, and spooned up next to my body. Her heart beat like a sparrow, even when she was in the deepest of slumber. I felt a bit sorry for her, all that responsibility, and her President screwing things up for her Party.

Nancy smelled good. Like the lady-cologne Charlie, and clean sweat.
She spoke, and I mostly just listened.
She was crazy about Matchbox 20.
She wanted us to become less dependent on oil.
Her favorite color was blue, and she confessed to me that she had an IQ of 123 but suffered from a limited attention span.

Anyway. I’m not sure why I shared this with you.
Just feeling a bit nostalgic, I guess. I hope Nancy’s happy is what I guess I’m saying.
I think she and whoever becomes the next President will get along just fine.
As long as they can hold their gin, and perhaps listen more than they speak.

 

QUOTE=Bluesguy;1063731055]Quote Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
No it is baby just go down to your local shopping mall and stop and ask all the pregnant women is that their baby or their fetus in there.

Or you can check the American Hertigage Dictionary

n. pl. ba·bies
1.
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.

I know your position must be very distasteful but you don't get to change the definitions of words. I don't know how I would live with myself if I was pro-abortion and the killing of babies.

Your failure to address my rebuttal noted.



Lack of rebuttal noted again, you don't get to make up your own definitions for words around here and then claims others are wrong no matter how distasteful it makes your position.[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
You were saying?

 

I have to laugh at the battle to control the semantics. As though there were any biological dispute here at all. Everyone can tell whether or not birth has occurred.

 

I'm sure you are right. In fact, you're already right, and have been for some time. It has been possible for decades to identify serious deformity and genetic disorders in the womb. And it's for these reasons that a (very) few wanted pregnancies are nonetheless aborted.

What traits do you fear will be selected for once doing so becomes easy?

 

Planned Parenthood is NOT an abortion clinic. About 3% of their budget is spent on abortion. They locate where parenthood planning is most critical. Hopefully, this means contraception.

Seriously, Bluesguy, Planned Parenthood is not in the business of selecting their clients whatsoever, anymore than WalMart.

 

It depends on the cultural environment. In China, primarily because poor Chinese value the labor a male would provide, they are choosing males. Who knows, but at a minimum, we can assume that people will not choose deformities, etc. And even if the procedures never become readily available to the larger population in numbers that would affect diversity, the point is, that if everyone did it, it would. Either it becomes a tool for all to choose their babies, and thus affect our genetic diversity, or it remains a tool available to only the elite of society. Either way, imo, abortion as a form of birth control is wrong.

 

I would hope it would be a tool for everyone, because people have such variable wants that, except to eliminate disease and deformity, you'd lose very little diversity. If some elite could decide who gets born, we could have the sorts of narrow focus that concern you.

By now, I'm reading you as opposing abortion more for philosophical reasons than for genetic reasons. Hopefully we both understand that birth control, of any kind, tends to do exactly the same sort of selection as abortion (which is simply one more birth control method, among many).

I'm not willing to make anyone else's moral judgments. I can see that abortion is an expensive, dangerous and inefficient method of birth control, compared to any other. But these disadvantages make it economically and pragmatically a poor choice. What we really need is a transparent, reversible birth control method that doesn't require remembering to take a drug, or the logistical inconveniences of condoms or diaphragms. Maybe the implants, or injections good for 6 months, or some such.

 

(My bold)
Sanger & PP's goal was to get BC information, devices, meds, etc. into the hands of the women/families who asked for it, & could not otherwise get it. Abortion was not Sanger's preferred method of BC - for the sake of the woman's health, she preferred non-surgical means. The logic of siting a PP center is that you put it where the demand is, or as near as possible. The demand for services is highest in urban areas, which also provides numbers of patients to keep the facilities/staff busy - which is part of the rationale for siting a clinic.

Yah, they could site @ a seminary or retiree home, where there is NO demand for abortion to speak of - but that's not what PP is geared up to do, that's not their mission, that's not their goal. Family planning & birth control imply sexually active biological adults, capable of engendering a fetus. Otherwise, there's no point for PP to be present in a location @ all.

 

Consciously choosing is NOT random. Everything I have ever learned about evolution depends on randomness. Any time gene combination is not random, the results don't work out so well for survival.

 

(My bold)

Yah, you can cite pregnant women & the dictionary to your heart's content.

But @ the national level in the US, it's the Supreme Court that ruled in Roe v. Wade back when. They're not impressed by appeals to motherhood, & they're certainly not going to be lectured on what lexicographers had to say about the language they parse every day from a legal point of view. The SC has revisited bits of the ruling, tinkered with the timeline, suggested that fetal viability may be a moving target. That may yet come, as medical technology gets better & we understand the fetal development cycle & the interactions with the woman's body better.

But it's not here yet; we can't yet replicate a womb artificially with any reasonable degree of accuracy. In the meantime, the SC's ruling is what we operate by.

 

Sanger had some evil ideas, but that was 100 years ago. That is not the ideals of Planned Parenthood and righty losers should just get the (*)(*)(*)(*) over it.

 

Yet nearly all partners choose one another. Perhaps the reasons for choosing have no correlation with genetic diversity?

As dog breeders can tell you, selecting for some prespecified trait requires draconian culling for a LOT of generations. And of course, the desired trait has to be present in the first place, to be selected for. Mutations happen every generation, occasionally providing new traits. I doubt humans are in any danger of inbreeding, in general. But where it has occurred, you're quite right that the results haven't been kind.

They say that the most attractive-looking people tend to breed with one another, but I wouldn't say there has been any growing gap between the ugly and the beautiful over the last, oh, half million years or so. Now, some slaveholders DID intentionally breed their slaves for increased plantation functionality, which generally meant bigger and stronger slaves were permitted to breed. And that DID have some effect on some slave populations.

 

Thanks very much for a well-thought-out and RELEVANT response!

 

Or you can check the American Hertigage Dictionary

n. pl. ba·bies
1.
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.

lack or rebuttal noted again

- - - Updated - - -

And the pro-abortion can dodge it all you want but you don't get to redefine words nor can the Supreme Court because your position is distasteful

But @ the national level in the US, it's the Supreme Court that ruled in Roe v. Wade back when. They're not impressed by appeals to motherhood, & they're certainly not going to be lectured on what lexicographers had to say about the language they parse every day from a legal point of view. The SC has revisited bits of the ruling, tinkered with the timeline, suggested that fetal viability may be a moving target. That may yet come, as medical technology gets better & we understand the fetal development cycle & the interactions with the woman's body better.

But it's not here yet; we can't yet replicate a womb artificially with any reasonable degree of accuracy. In the meantime, the SC's ruling is what we operate by.[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

It is because it is considered a Fetus until born, read all the description or don't reply.

 

"Planned Parenthood has come out with its annual report, and in it the abortion giant boasted that its affiliates around the nation performed 333,964 of the murderous procedures during 2010-11, up from 332,278 pre-born deaths in 2009, the previous yearly record. The latest number, which represents an abortion performed every 94 seconds, is just one of the many statistics the group crowed about in its just-released report. “We are so proud of the year’s many successes, and deeply grateful for all the partners, sponsors, volunteers, staff and friends who helped make them possible,” the group's president, Cecile Richards, said in a statement.

A fact sheet released with the report noted that among the “services” provided by Planned Parenthood during the reporting period were the distribution of 1.43 million “emergency contraception kits,” which include birth control drugs known to cause abortion in pregnant women who take them. And while the abortion giant oversaw the killing of hundreds of thousands of babies, it could only muster 2,300 adoption referrals over the same time period, which comes out to some 145 abortions for every adoption.

As for other services it boasts, the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) noted that over the past three years, while its revenue has skyrocketed, Planned Parenthood's contraceptive services have dropped by 12 percent and its cancer screenings by 29 percent.

Meanwhile, according to its annual report, in 2010 Planned Parenthood raked in a record $542.4 million in federal, state, and local government funding — nearly half of its $1.2 billion in total revenue. Overall, Planned Parenthood ended the 2010-11 fiscal year with a $87.4 million profit.

According to Fox News, tax dollars accounted for 45 percent of Planned Parenthood's budget in 2010, a 167 percent rise in government funding of the abortion giant in the past 10 years, by one account. While many states are working to defund Planned Parenthood, the fact that the organization is responsible for nearly one million abortions (995,687) over the past three years while receiving billions in government dollars prompted a response of alarm and outrage from pro-life leaders.

“Planned Parenthood has spent much of the last few years demanding that taxpayers add millions more to their coffers, citing their non-profit status and so-called focus on women’s health,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA List. “What have we received for our money? While government subsidies to Planned Parenthood have reached an all time high, so too has the number of lives ended by this profit-driven abortion business. Destroying nearly one million children in three years is not health care and does not reflect a concern for vulnerable women and girls. As Planned Parenthood’s funding goes up, abortions increase and real health services for women go down.”

http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultur...-count-in-2010

The market themselves to gain the clients they desire just like any other business.

 

Where have I said otherwise, they are not mutually exclusive terms.

Baby
n. pl. ba·bies
1.
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.

So yes a baby is killed in an abortion, sorry that is such a distasteful thing to support but you choose your own ground to defend not me.

 

Then laugh at Casper.

The birth has nothing to do with it, that human life in the womb is a baby, a fetus. One in the same.

Baby

n. pl. ba·bies
1.
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.

And that is what is killed in an abortion. Sorry it's hard to swallow that you support the killing of babies but that is the ground you choose to stand and defend.

Want to take that walk through the mall and ask every pregnant woman what that is inside her and then pay up?

 

A week old fetuse is a baby? Nice try and Failure.

 

Baby
n. pl. ba·bies
1.
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.

Having reading problems or just have a desperate need to pretend otherwise?

 

Having logic problems? A week old fetus is Not a baby, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

 

A week old fetus is life. Look it up.

 

FIRST, ask the woman if she wants to be pregnant and have a child, THEN ask what's inside her. Still want to play?

- - - Updated - - -

Your liver is life. Look it up. Next time, think first.