Elizabeth Warren to GOP: Did You Hit Your Head & Think You Woke Up in 1950s or 1890s?

LOL, I suggest you look at the numerous unwarranted attacks on PP plus the number of attempted (some even passed) legally restrictions proposed by Republicans concerning PP and then try to explain how their goal is not criminalizing abortion. All of this de-funding lark is merely a smoke screen to achieve their goal.

Except for the fact of course that PP do not use Federal funding for abortions - except in very specific situations, such as rape, incest and life threats to the female, do you want it removed for those reasons, and how ironic and hypocritical that you accuse me of having "moral superiority"

LOL right the old "Hobsons Choice" ... where you have a choice, but not really, and how you come to the conclusion that having the right to choose who, what, where and when you body is used means removing all laws is plain inane. Name one law that stops you choosing who, what, where and when your body can be used .. I guess you have never heard of consent either.

De-funding PP would only lead to the poorest not having medical services, and IF as you advocate that PP should be de-funded then you also have to advocate for all federal funding to be removed from all medical service providers, or is it as I said more the case you only want to remove funding from those you don't personally like.

The full videos paint a very different picture from the hyperbolic claims of this group, if cutting out the of the video of you walking to the store meant some piece of relevant information was missing does that mean that the video is a true and correct representation .. no it does not, it would be misrepresentation.

Yes I have watched both the edited and full versions, the edited are obviously done in a way to cast PP in the worse light as possible, where as the full versions paint a very different picture.

Your quip about the "gist" of the conversation is nothing more than your own bias seeing and hearing what you want to see and hear.

did she lie, please show where she lied.

If the people in those videos can be shown to be in violation of any laws then they should be charged and if found guilty prosecuted, to insist that a whole organization should be burned to the ground is pathetic and childish, because if that is what you claim then you had better start advocating for the burning of religions based on the fact that some of them are prove paedophiles.

 

Somebody should tell Senator Tonto that her party still doesn't understand what a human being is.

 

As I suspected you don't really know very much about consent laws.

A woman gives consent to a man for sexual intercourse, that does not imply she also gives consent to pregnancy, at best it could be said to be implied or informed consent, problem is both of those become moot the second the woman by word or action explicitly states "no".

Consent to sexual intercourse merely gives a risk of pregnancy (a only a small risk at that) and no person is legally expected to suffer prolonged injury due to a risk taken, and before you assert that pregnancy is not an injury it more than meets the requirements of being not only an injury but a serious injury and it is already deemed as such in some cases.

The "mere fact that one is willing to incur a risk that conduct in a deliberate violent act will be committed", for example, "does not mean one is willing for such conduct to be committed" - Source : W. Page Keeton, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton, and David G. Owen; Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th Ed, Page 113

Sarcasm, the lowest form of wit usually used by the least intelligent.

Nope, not in the slightest ..for one the known result of sexual intercourse is not always pregnancy (less than 6% chance of pregnancy in a single act of unprotected sexually intercourse, and that 6% is only during a very small window.)

By your logic a climber who falls and breaks their leg should not receive any medical care for their injuries, after all they partook in an action knowing the risks involved, they ran those risks and as such a level of consent is given. They have agreed to run those risks and the outcomes that come with them .. so does the climber who falls and breaks their leg not receive medical attention?

or how about the woman who goes jogging in Central park at night, does she accept the risks and outcomes of being mugged, raped or assaulted, simply because she knew the risks involved and as such gives a level of consent?

 

Speak to Mitch McConnell. He's the one who lifted the ban.

 

I ask you, so what? When you know that old white christian males are going to exclude you, what are the alternatives? Seems to me that's what parties are for.

 

The individual mandate is useless for those who do not qualify for insurance; http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...ing-Obamacare-Medicaid-expansion-need-it-most And this is all because of red states turning down medicaid expansion. This directly impacts the poor in these states. What a bunch of (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

And the other party doesn't know when human life begins ;https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

 

And that is conjecture. The senate did not vote on the legality of abortions, they voted on defunding planned parenthood so again, you calling it a "goal" is nothing but conjecture. You can hold that belief as firmly as you want to, it does not change the fact that it is conjecture. What makes these "attacks" against planned parenthood unwarranted? Were the shootings in Ferguson today, unwarranted? You are cherry-picking based on your own beliefs. The restrictions that you are referring to are in reference to abortion, not planned parenthood. You are misrepresenting the case again. You go on to say "then try to explain how their goal is not criminalizing abortion". They aren't, at least not in a truly criminalizing, abortion-attacking way. They are merely making an attempt to draw a line in the sand for human life itself. Again, I find it uncomfortably ludicrous that your argument is to say that this unborn, innocent, potentially great human being is simply an inconvenience to the autonomy of the carrier... so your answer is to remove not just all autonomy from this life, but to literally destroy it out of existence. Your argument in laymen terms is to remove the autonomy of one, to guarantee the autonomy of another. No, that isn't Orwellian at all.

It is against the law that planned parenthood use their federal funding for abortions.... but tell me (and I am being completely serious, call me ignorant in this respect) how do we know that tax dollars are not spent on that? Do they have different accounts for private donors and federal funding, along with complete cost analysis sheets and expense reports to specifically show where every bit of the money is going? Or is it pooled together like most organizations do? If I got $5 from you and $5 from your neighbor and I assured you under penalty of law that I wouldn't use YOUR $5 for any cigarettes or alcohol, but I went out and bought $5 worth of cigarettes and alcohol... how do you know that I did not use YOUR money? I am sure that in your opinion, it makes no difference. $5 is $5, it was pooled together and I would essentially still have $5 remaining that I could simply call yours... but that is where you and some others differ. Personally, I want to know where my tax dollars are going to and no (obviously), I do not want my tax dollars to fund abortions and a majority of people don't want their tax dollars funding that. What is ironic and hypocritical about my comment? My moral superiority comment was directed to your appeared condescension to which you can freely ignore if you were not being condescending.

To ignore the obvious of suicide... Every law. Laws are there to provide safety to people from people in order to create a homogeneous, civil, and productive society. That doesn't mean that every law is correct, perfect, or even works as it should, but that is the purpose. Consent is irrelevant when referred to autonomy as consent is already and obviously assumed. Where does it say that a person has "the right to choose who, what, where and when you body is used"? One could argue the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness claim... but then again, that same line could be and has been used against abortion. And no one was advocating to remove all laws, that was the equivalent to complete autonomy. You calling it inane is not wrong, but the comparison isn't wrong either. Just another example of cherry-picking what works for some.

Defunding planned parenthood would not lead to the poorest not having medical services, this is completely wrong and ridiculous. Not only are there state level facilities that do what planned parenthood does (abortions aside), but there is the liberal-pushed Obamacare which would allow for poor people to have health care access, that was the purpose for it even existing in the first place. Please tell me how defunding planned parenthood has now become the equivalent to funding for medical service providers?

The full videos paint no different a picture, that is YOUR bias seeing and hearing what your want to see and hear. Sure this group added some music, slow-motion, etc to make that particular segment of the video come across as more alarming via dramatic effect, but NO ONE is arguing that the people in the videos did not say the things that there are shown to be saying. Adding effects like these are no different than campaign ads, no different then the pro-feminism princess video, etc.. it is actually exponentially more light-hearted than the Trayvon Martin standing in front of a cop with a KKK hood on... all of these are done for the dramatic effect, for the sharing/replaying or re-showing value. You are taking it and appear to be acting as if the full video goes on to vindicate planned parenthood, when it absolutely doesn't. It doesn't go on to tell any different a truth. I am not saying that planned parenthood is guilty of any wrong-doing, I already said that. But I do believe there is enough information to launch an investigation.

Please share with EVERYONE (news outlets included) what relevant piece of information was left out in these planned parenthood videos. You should have simply added that to your post in the first place. Hell, even I would admit that there is some stuff that I would have left in for credibility-sake, but not having it in the edited videos does not remove all credibility in the first place. The organization that released these videos is ALSO the one that released the full length videos. Now either this group has nothing to hide... OR they are more stupid than even the majority of liberals are giving them credit for. I am sure you will favor the latter given how you seem to have found some sort of vindication in the full length videos. Vindication that even major liberal media won't acknowledge.

"Yes I have watched both the edited and full versions, the edited are obviously done in a way to cast PP in the worse light as possible," - well duh.

" where as the full versions paint a very different picture." - no it doesn't. See above or provide where you think the video changes the full picture.

Her ENTIRE speech was nothing more than misrepresenting the case, attacking republicans, and ideologically charged drivel, much like you have. Like I said, the ACTUAL CURRENT argument is to defund planned parenthood pending an investigation. She made it out to be an attack on womens health care, which it isn't. It isn't even a debate to disassemble or close the doors of planned parenthood. It is about defunding an organization due to recent developments to ensure no illegality has occurred and if necessary to remove all funding entirely which would simply put planned parenthood on the private market, not forcing them to close their doors along with any necessary charges being filed IF illegality is determined. Never once did she discuss what was in the videos, never once did she talk about the sale of baby body parts whether fact or fiction, never once did she mention that the full videos vindicate planned parenthood or tell a different story.

So you at least are willing to say that if they have done something wrong, that they should have charges brought against them like anyone else. That is good, we are in agreement there. However, you won't know if they committed any wrong doing without an investigation, so is it fair to say that an investigation is necessary? That is all that I have been advocating. I never once said that they were guilty. I never once said that planned parenthood should be burned to the ground, nor did I allude to that.

And your religious comparison holds no weight.

 

Which was what I had claimed.

Unfortunately what your side needs to learn is that the word "no" isnt a Magic Wand. The times and Places for "No" to have any relevance are NOT after you have been impregnated. Sorry, by then saying No is simply too late.

For examp,e if you choose to drive drunk....you cannot just say "no" when you are about to run someone over. likewise the time to say no to possibly getting pregnant is not after you have, it comes before hand.

Consent to the risk. Not much else to say on that is there? You've run through the risks...and you've consented.

Consent to Skydiving, and you dont get to claim you never consented to getting injured. People know the risks that come with certain activities.

With a Human Life at stake, people cannot simply say 'No" after saying "yes"...it's too late, and now there is a third party involved who cannot defend itself.

But it does mean one is willing to take their chances. Thats what we have here. Now if it wasnt revolving around a human life, perhaps we could cut them some slack....but thats not the case here. You cannot simply snuff out a life that was created by steps you willingly agreed to...because you were hoping the odds turned out in your favor.

Too much at stake.

Sarcasm, the light hearted response to unintelligent people making ridiculous arguments.

Of course he recieves medical attention.

What he does NOT recieve is a bag of money to retire on for his mistake. He ran the risks, and in these cases I'd wager signed a waiver.

She accepts those risks. Of course she doesnt want that outcome...but if the Park has a history of those occurances after dark...and she knows and chooses to jog there anyway, well noone to blame but herself. She has to now live with the injuries, both Physical and Mental until she heals up. Saying she didnt consent to this is far too late at this point.

 

If you cant afford obamacare, you can get it for free, via subsidies.

If your state didnt expand medicaid, you can still get a catastrophic plan, cheaper than what the marketplace offers.

Red States turned it down because they will have to pick of the tab for the medicaid expansion after 2022, and the added cost will bankrupt them.

you wont find reality on the dailykos, only lies and bullcrap.

 

No it is not conjecture ,and why should PP be de-funded when as it stands there are only allegations .. I also thought it was innocent until proven guilty, has that changed?
You and Republicans are so intent on punishing PP as a whole, based on the desire to stop abortions, for the alleged illegal activity of some of its workforce that you seem to have forgotten that punishment is not dished out until allegations have been proven to be correct and even then the punishment should be against those who have broken the law, not the organisation as a whole to the extent you and others advocate.

Then draw the line in the sand against executions, if they are so worried about human life .. but no they find executions justifiable, well in my book abortion is justifiable as well, especially if the unborn are deemed persons from conception.

Explain how you can have autonomy living inside of another person - Autonomy - Freedom from external control or influence; independence Explain how a fetus is independent - Not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence.

PP are audited every year, they have also been subjected to a number of investigation concerning their usage of Federal funding and not once has any issue been found where they are illegally using Federal funds for abortion EXCEPT in some very specific circumstances ie rape, incest and life threats to the female none of which go against the Hyde agreement.

Planned Parenthood are a 501(c)(3) organization. By law, their books are open to anyone who wishes to see them, if as you are suggesting Federal monies had or are being used to fund abortions outside of the exceptions already noted then you can be damn sure some pro-life group would have been shouting very, very loud about it and the IRS would be knocking on their door .. guess what, it hasn't happened.

Whether the money is pooled or not is irrelevant, the onus is on those making the accusation to provide proof to that accusation, so please provide your proof that PP are using Federal funds for abortion outside of the exceptions allowed?

I don't want my tax money funding war, but unlike you I know that once that tax has been taken it is no longer my money, it is up to the government voted into power by the majority on how that money is used for society.

Perhaps if you are so concerned about how tax money is used you should lobby your representative to propose a law that each and every person fills in a document that lists EVERY single thing tax money is used for, placing a cross on the things they want their portion to be used on .. one wonders just how large a department would be required to process the millions of forms received, let alone the budget requirement for such an undertaking.

suicide is not illegal in the US, by the mid 1990's all states had removed suicide as a crime.

So every law decides who, what, where and when another person can use your body for their own means .. you really believe that, if so prove it. In fact you are wrong, there are laws specifically put into place to protect a person from the exploitation of others.

Legally there is no such thing as assumed consent, it can be consent through written or spoken word, it can be implied consent through actions or lack of action, it can be informed consent through the person knowing or being informed of the consequences of actions....

However ...

Implied and informed consent are only valid to the point that the person, by word or action, explicitly says "no", after that implied or informed consent are moot and unless you can show a written consent to pregnancy or prove a verbal consent to pregnancy then you have nothing.

Consent - "Voluntary Acquiescence to the proposal of another; the act or result of reaching an accord; a concurrence of minds; actual willingness that an act or an infringement of an interest shall occur." - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent please explain how a women has ""Voluntary Acquiescence to the proposal of another", how she reaches an accord with a fetus, how the "concurrence of minds" between her and the fetus takes place, how wanting an abortion shows "actual willingness that an act or an infringement of an interest shall occur."

Wrong, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness comes from the DOI which has no legal standing.

Please list the cost to the person for the services provided by these other places compared to what PP charges.

Furthermore those other clinics do not have the infrastructure to cope with up to 5 million people descending on them all at once should PP be de-funded, and what are you going to do with the people who are in states where Medicaid was not expanded? 20 States, Including 19 “Red” States and Maine Didn’t Expand Medicaid (As of July 2015) - https://www.statereforum.org/Medicaid-Expansion-Decisions-Map - Right now there are about 30 million Americans without insurance.

Without Planned Parenthood millions of low-income men and women in non-expansion states would have nowhere to turn for reproductive health services, education, and information. Even in states that expanded Medicaid, Planned Parenthood helps both those with and without insurance including those with Marketplace coverage. Free birth control, cancer screenings related to sexual health, STI screenings, and maternity care may be covered under ObamaCare, but even people with coverage still need a place to get those services.

You might suggest that people go private . .however, even though many things are covered by Obamacare, often a private doctor requires a copay and/or an appointment. Paying $100 to see your doctor to ask them for free birth-control provided through one’s insurance, or getting a free STI screening feels much less free after you pay for your not-free doctors appointment (only one free wellness visit is offered each year under the ACA).

Really, then I must assume you have not watched the full videos, and who is saying anything about the effects added, it is the edited out dialogue that changes the picture. Here is a excellent dismantling of the videos - http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/07/28/7-things-media-should-know-about-the-third-unde/204636 , fourth video - http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/07/28/7-things-media-should-know-about-the-third-unde/204636 and for the fifth video - http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/04/4-more-deceptive-edits-in-the-fifth-video-attem/204766 and here - http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/07/21/latest-video-attacking-planned-parenthood-full/204524

An investigation yes, however as far as I am aware you don't dish out punishment until the allegations have been prove .. calling for the de-funding of PP is saying they are guilty BEFORE any investigation has been done, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Perhaps we should execute people before their trial and if we got it wrong we can say "ooops sorry"

See above

Considering the fact that other groups have tried (and failed) to release edited videos of supposed PP wrong doing and also released the full un-edited videos that show no wrong doing it would not surprise me in the slightest, add to that-that this group had to be pressurized into releasing the full videos and I would say yes they did have something to hide, and as the links provided amply show they did.

you said she lied, please point out the lies, the insult to me is noted and treated with the contempt is so richly deserves.

Why? do you punish the alleged criminal before the trial?

It is simply another attack in a long line of attacks.

Investigate and if proof is found then prosecute the people involved, burning down the building because of a few people who have been alleged to have broken the law is overkill.

you don't de-fund an organisation based on allegations.

Still waiting for those lies you stated she said.

I have never stated anything other than that.

If there is the necessary evidence that these employees of PP broke the law (which I do not believe there is) then certainly an investigation should be done into those employees and possibly PP should be advised that they need to ensure their employees are adhering to the law, to de-fund an organisation wholesale based on the possible illegal activities of a few of it's employees is overkill.

Yet you support punishing them before the facts or the results of any investigation are known, sure seems like they are being found guilty .. what you are advocating for is that they have to prove their innocence instead of their accusers proving their guilt.

Really, strange I didn't hear of any body calling for religious organizations to be de-funded pending an investigation .. did you, and were they de-funded as a whole once the investigation found that some of their employees were in fact breaking the law?

 

She hit her head on her teepee and thought she was a squaw.

 

Where do feel the line is between a womans right to abortion and infanticide? I'm certainly for people who don't have the resources or inclinations to be viable parents to NOT have children but they need to make that decision pretty early in the process!

 

sorry you are 100% legally wrong.

sorry you are wrong the drunk person has already committed an offence by getting into the car and driving while drunk, regardless of any offence (or not) that occurs as a result of the initial offence, or are you suggesting that sex is an offence and that pregnancy is a further offence?

I assume you are one of those people who insist that a fetus is a person from conception, if you are I also assume you know that consent is not transferable between people unless the person who gave the consent agrees. If as some pro-lifers insist the fetus is a person from conception then it must gain separate consent as a separate person to impose pregnancy onto a woman.

consent to a risk does not mean or imply consent to any injuries that may occur due to the risk being taken.

correct, however a skydiver is not denied medical treatment for any injuries that may result from taking that risk are they?

Legally they can, especially when that human life is attached to them or are you suggesting that a person who says yes to being connected to another person cannot withdraw that consent at a later date?

This assumes that the fetus is the victim, when in reality it is the fetus that is causing injury to the woman prior to her defending herself.

What difference does it make whether it is a human life or not? What you are implying is that the unborn should have a right that no other person has which is a clear violation of the equal protection clause and due process clause and renders the unborn of a higher standing than any other person .. Remember the equal protection clause, it basically means the state cannot offer something to one group of people that it denies others ergo if the state offers the unborn the right to live inside or be attached to another person it cannot deny that right to all other people. It would also be a violation of the due process clause. The Due process clause ensures the rights and equality of all citizens, unless you are saying that the unborn are not citizens?

Really, then you should have no problem dismantling the "ridiculous arguments" .. many have tried, all have failed.

ergo so can a woman receive medical attention for the injuries pregnancy imposes on her or are you suggesting that the woman has a lesser right to medical attention?

no idea what you are blabbering on about, are you implying that a pregnant woman gets paid to have an abortion, if so please provide you evidence to support that.

See this is where you are wrong, she may consent to those risks, that does not mean or imply that she consents to being injured by a third party, by your logic the rapist should not be arrested or prosecuted after all she knew the risks.

 

Why stop at the time of birth? Why not allow killing infants? They are obviously still dependent on others. Hell, lets just kill our kids as soon as they become inconvenient as long as they can't take care of themselves.

 

Babies, infants etc are socially dependent, the unborn are biologically dependent.

Socially dependent - Dependent on society ie any person can provide
Biologically dependent - Dependent on a biological joining ie only one person can provide.

There is no need to kill a baby/infant/etc as there needs can be provided by any person willing to do so and neither are they causing injuries to another person, the same is not true of the unborn, their needs can only be provided by one person, the unborn cannot be "given" away and the unborn are causing injuries to the pregnant woman everyday she remains pregnant.

 

Dependent is dependent. Its all semantics as far as im concerned. Im not against abortion but it needs to be done very early in the pregnancy.

 

There's nothing biblical about believing a fetus is an entirely separate human being. That's scientific biological truth.

 

Well no it isn't semantics, there is a very big difference between being social dependent and biologically dependent.

glad to hear it, though I believe the goal on both sides is for abortion to be a very rare thing .. however the way to reach that is where pro-lifers and pro-choicers differ.

pro-lifers believe it can be achieved through legislation which history tells us is not the case, where as pro-choicers believe it can be achieved through comprehensive sex education and ALL contraceptives being free at source which research shows us does, at least, reduce abortions. I'd love to live long enough where the argument about elective abortion basically becomes moot .. but, what I won't do is sit by and watch women become state owned breeding chambers.

I really don't think pro-lifers have really thought about the massive conflict of rights they would bring into play if they ever got a person at conception ideology passed into law.

 

For the sake of this discussion they are synonymous AFAIC.

Your binary world view and shrill hyperbole don't further your argument.

 

It is only a scandal in the tiny minds of those who tried to discredit her during her successful run for the US Senate. She is from Oklahoma originally and has Native American blood in her ancestry. If you nit wits think you can win elections by harping about phony, contrived "scandals" you are delusional. The GOP should abandon this losing strategy and come up with some actual ideas that might be beneficial to thef general public.

 

Disagree.

Not suggesting that at all. Just trying to demonstrate for you how the power of saying "no" cannot roll back time when it doesnt work out the way you ahd hoped. In some circumstances there is only one time to say no before a process starts in which you lose that ability.

Once a child is formed...the power of "I didnt want this" becomes irrelevant.

Once fertilized, IMO, it has a right to life, and consent was given when the woman took steps to create it and house it. We dont have time machines, so consent can only be given or denied at point of creation.

It means you knew of the risks and accepted them, and unlike other examples we've both bantered about...this one involves a human life in it's development.

Nor is a pregnant Woman. She'll get all the medical care she requires.

Well thats the issue isnt it? The legality of it. Thats why it's an issue. Many people feel this legality is wrong. They could withdraw consent if the other person is capable of surviving on it's own, sure...however thats a hypothetical and thats not the case here. This is why you cant simply change your mind once the process starts. The process of Life has a very set way in which it forms and grows. It is not controlled by the laws of man, it is a process that happens regardless of our stances. Life is it's own thing.

The "fetus" IS the victim in abortion. A Woman defending herself...from her baby?? LOL....you guys and your ridiculous arguments.

The bolded is the problem I see all too often on your side. One other thing...your ant about the state "offering" something to one group and not to another is utter garbage. This isnt a product or a service...it's a life and I hate to break it to you but the state has no power here. Life is what it is. The rules of the creation of life are not made by the state, it's the way Life itself works.. Life gets created by certain known actions with no state services required to do so. They arent giving anyone anything. The state cannot make a law which changes the way this works, simply not in the states power.
Life and how it forms is not something the State gives anyone. The species and it's creating and reproduction predate any state, or it's laws. You cant look at this like stolen property or the right to own a car.

We've talked a couple times before, so you arent being truthful when you say all have failed. I've dismantled you and your ridiculous arguments on a couple occasions. This one is no different.

Medical Attention? Of course she gets medical attention during a pregnancy. However lets cut through your latest line of BS and stop pretending that scrambling the baby and sucking out the pieces is "Medical Attention".

It was a parallel to having the "problem" removed. They can't all be gems. Sometimes they hit...sometimes they miss lol.

Sorry, getting yourself pregnant in no way can be considered "injured by a third party".

Now lets look at this interesting slip you have made. "Third Party"...Hmmm. What is a "third Party"? Lets look it up and see.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Third+Party


Interesting. See what I see Fugazi? A "person or group"?
Still think thats a good argument to run with? LOL....your argument just admitted person hood. In light of that, everything you rambled about before loses any merit it may have had. Once we establish personhood, we have to grant rights.
The most fundamental and important right we have is the ability to exist. These rights will always come first before a Womans convenience.


Still think that was a good arument to make?


Might want to revisit the statement you made above about Many have tried and All have failed, because from here you just got dismantled....again.