Planned Parenthood will stop taking reimbursements for fetal tissue.

[PaulF]

I am unclear where you get off thinking that you can decide what my definition means to me or anyone else?

Well, I don't. I mean, I don't get to.

More importantly, I don't have to. The only definition that matters is the one imposed upon us by law...not mine, not yours...law.

Because if the legal definition doesn't serve, we can change it...right?

Which is exactly what happened when the legal definition of murder was changed to exclude abortion...right?

If you don't like my terms for entering the conversation then don't enter the conversation...simple.

I have seen your posts, Fargo. You are a creative guy. You could come up with a dozen ways to argue your point without resorting to the "murdering babies" trope. I get it, you don't want to be told what you can or cannot say. I get it.

This topic is toxic. It turns us into the worst stereotype of ourselves, out there for the world to re-broadcast. It truly brings out the worst in us. The "Murdering Babies" narrative doesn't move the conversation forward, it only jabs at the opposition, which inevitably drives the narrative downward.

If we can stay away from these type of "bumper sticker" jabs at each other the thread can stay open, otherwise they will be closed.

You may not like it, but I do get to set the terms...

 

[bwframe]

I started a post the other day about business owners personal opinions being posted on the internet and social media and what if any is the fallout on hot topics...

Link?

 

[Fargo]

Well, I don't. I mean, I don't get to.

More importantly, I don't have to. The only definition that matters is the one imposed upon us by law...not mine, not yours...law.

Because if the legal definition doesn't serve, we can change it...right?

Which is exactly what happened when the legal definition of murder was changed to exclude abortion...right?

If you don't like my terms for entering the conversation then don't enter the conversation...simple.

I have seen your posts, Fargo. You are a creative guy. You could come up with a dozen ways to argue your point without resorting to the "murdering babies" trope. I get it, you don't want to be told what you can or cannot say. I get it.

This topic is toxic. It turns us into the worst stereotype of ourselves, out there for the world to re-broadcast. It truly brings out the worst in us. The "Murdering Babies" narrative doesn't move the conversation forward, it only jabs at the opposition, which inevitably drives the narrative downward.

If we can stay away from these type of "bumper sticker" jabs at each other the thread can stay open, otherwise they will be closed.

You may not like it, but I do get to set the terms...

The idea that the only definitions that matter are the ones set by law is in my opinion one of the saddest.

It completely despairs of the idea that we are any the better as people then the bare minimum that the law requires.

I spend my days in court rooms dealing with the bare minimums the law requires. I certainly hope we can do somewhat better than that.

 

[17 squirrel]

Link?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-media-small-business.html?highlight=Opinions

 

[PaulF]

The idea that the only definitions that matter are the ones set by law is in my opinion one of the saddest.

It completely despairs of the idea that we are any the better as people then the bare minimum that the law requires.

So, then, we should TOTALLY let third wave feminists define rape, right?

 

[Fargo]

So, then, we should TOTALLY let third wave feminists define rape, right?

Not really getting your point. I'm starting to get the impression that you are just talking past me for the fun of it.

Lets go back to 1970. Should you have been prevented from arguing that abortion is not murder because you felt that it did not fit the definition of murder as you saw it?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So, then, we should TOTALLY let third wave feminists define rape, right?

No more than we should allow anti-gun people define what "common sense" gun measures are. Should we just accept the paradigm that LTCHs and NFA infringements on silencers, SBRs, and full autos ... because it's defined and accepted law?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

If we aren't going to close the thread, then can we please take a look at the very first post... the original post... at this line:

This thread isn't a place to discuss or debate your views or morals of abortion. This is an update to the ongoing Planned Parenthood controversy, and development thereof

... and can we get back on that sort of track? If not, remove my OP and give the thread to someone else. I've tried multiple times to approach this from the proper, fiscal point-of-view.

 

[PistolBob]

Defund them, close their doors, shut them down. I don't care to hear their lame excuses anymore.

 

[PaulF]

Not really getting your point. I'm starting to get the impression that you are just talking past me for the fun of it.

Lets go back to 1970. Should you have been prevented from arguing that abortion is not murder because you felt that it did not fit the definition of murder as you saw it?

Ok, no. I mean nothing at your expense.

A third-wave feminist might argue that the male gaze itsef is rape. Rape is, of course, a very serious crime. When it comes to society's most serious crimes, we need to work from the established definitions. The alternative is jail time for rapey looks.

As it stands, today, in real terms: On INGO abortion threads get closed.

I am offering a way to keep them open...elevate the dialog. Nothing more.

No more than we should allow anti-gun people define what "common sense" gun measures are. Should we just accept the paradigm that LTCHs and NFA infringements on silencers, SBRs, and full autos ... because it's defined and accepted law?

I am saying murder means something. Calling a woman who took a pill that ended a seven-week pregnancy a "Murderer" makes you look like a raving lunatic.

Elevate the dialogue, or don't have one.

That is the choice we face.

 

[Fargo]

Ok, no. I mean nothing at your expense.

A third-wave feminist might argue that the male gaze itsef is rape. Rape is, of course, a very serious crime. When it comes to society's most serious crimes, we need to work from the established definitions. The alternative is jail time for rapey looks.

As it stands, today, in real terms: On INGO abortion threads get closed.

I am offering a way to keep them open...elevate the dialog. Nothing more.



I am saying murder means something. Calling a woman who took a pill that ended a seven-week pregnancy a "Murderer" makes you look like a raving lunatic.

Elevate the dialogue, or don't have one.

That is the choice we face.

I'm not really understanding how delivering a baby past the point of viability, until its head is the only thing remaining inside the woman, and then burying a pair of scissors in the base of the skull doesn't constitute murder isn't somehow flipping that raving lunatic coin just a little.

 

[PaulF]

I'm not really understanding how delivering a baby past the point of viability, until its head is the only thing remaining inside the woman, and then burying a pair of scissors in the base of the skull doesn't constitute murder isn't somehow flipping that raving lunatic coin just a little.

That sounds horrific. I don't understand why someone would choose that over a live delivery, I really don't. It is my understanding that the procedure you describe is very rare, and already illegal in a great many locations. It certainly sounds barbaric, whether it is murder or not is a matter of law...not my opinion.

But, I think you see what I'm driving at...looking at my previous post I can't even keep myself from doing it: go for the cheap "points", rather than take the more difficult path and elevate the discussion.

You have the intellect to take a bumper-sticker quip and turn it into a solid sounding argument. I suspect that is why you have chosen a career in law. That isn't the point of this, and you know it. Butt heads with me if you want...it's okay. You win, man.

You need to realize this isn't just me, on INGO threads about abortion get closed. If you want to be a part of changing that you can be, by elevating the dialogue.

 

[churchmouse]

Well boys....regardless of who or what I already stated the thread had to stay on track. It did not.


Good night Alice.

This topic is getting out of control way to often.
I will be watching any further discussions very closely.

 

[JTScribe]

Trying to bring things back on track, if we could somehow streamline and reduce the cost of the adoption process, I think it might become a more viable option. One of my wife's cousins has adopted two children, another one. In all three cases the legal fees were tens of thousands of dollars all together. One of the adopted children is 10 and isn't paid off yet (a little adoption humor, there.)

 

[indiucky]

Does it? I mean, as we've covered, the people who are going to be affected by this aren't the ones with money.The deck is stacked against them economically from the moment they emerge from the birth canal. What kind of future are we insisting that they be born into?

As someone who comes from a long line of rural, dirt poor folk I respectfully disagree..."Rags to Riches" is a theme that plays itself out through history and I just can't see myself looking at a child born to poor folks and saying, "Your life sucks, I can't believe you insisted on being born to it."

Some of the happiest most well adjusted people I have ever met in my life didn't have a pot to whizz in and there are riches in this world that do not cost a dime. IMHO of course.....

 

[indiucky]

I started a post the other day about business owners personal opinions being posted on the internet and social media and what if any is the fallout on hot topics.
This is one of those times and topics I was thinking about.

I don't know and I don't really worry about it...If someone would not come to my place of business because I believe that life begins at conception there is nothing I can do about that...I can only be myself and let the chips fall where they may....It's only money......

You know there are politicians out there that put their opinions on social media...If folks don't like them (the opinions) then they will not vote for them...If people don't like my opinions they will not patronize my business....It's called "life" and I think everyone, rich or poor, should get a shot at it...It's a lot of fun, especially this time of year when the leaves are changing....

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

After pondering this subject (PP and them selling fetal parts, etc)... I've come to a conclusion:

Regardless of whether one feels that it should be legal or not, most folks would prefer that abortions happen less often. True? I've got to think that that's the case. But hey, feel free to correct me if that's NOT the case.

Given that - almost anyone , therefore, should be against PP having a profit motive to see that MORE abortions happened.

If the above is true (AND assuming that the profit motive is honestly going away, and not just being hidden) - then we should all welcome this news with open arms. I grant that I view it with some suspicion, in that I think that the money trail may be just going underground. But if PP is truly giving up the cash that they received for this - then I guess it can only be viewed as a step in the right direction, no?

Granted - many of us (myself included) would prefer that it went a lot farther and that abortions 1) never happened and 2) never needed to happen.
But all cynicism aside - if they are truly no longer going to profit from the trade, I've got to think that that's a step in the right direction.

 

[MisterChester]

After pondering this subject (PP and them selling fetal parts, etc)... I've come to a conclusion:

Regardless of whether one feels that it should be legal or not, most folks would prefer that abortions happen less often. True? I've got to think that that's the case. But hey, feel free to correct me if that's NOT the case.

Given that - almost anyone , therefore, should be against PP having a profit motive to see that MORE abortions happened.

If the above is true (AND assuming that the profit motive is honestly going away, and not just being hidden) - then we should all welcome this news with open arms. I grant that I view it with some suspicion, in that I think that the money trail may be just going underground. But if PP is truly giving up the cash that they received for this - then I guess it can only be viewed as a step in the right direction, no?

Granted - many of us (myself included) would prefer that it went a lot farther and that abortions 1) never happened and 2) never needed to happen.
But all cynicism aside - if they are truly no longer going to profit from the trade, I've got to think that that's a step in the right direction.

I'd like to see less abortions but they have every right to have one. Im not going to fight for more or less abortions because it isn't my business.

 

[churchmouse]

Requesting thread close. There are a couple of particularly poison members here (on both sides), and if no one is going to warn/mod them out... it's going to continue downhill.

I got the news out. You're all now up-to-speed on the PP situation. Those that had to inject their politics - Thanks. Thanks a ton.

I did close it...........

So it is closed again.

 

[Que]

I opened the thread to moderate it.