3rd Shock Video Catches Planned Parenthood V.P. Selling Body Parts of Aborted Babies

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: butcherguy

How can somebody refuse a service that they don't offer to begin with??? My foot doctor doesn't do PAP smears or brain surgery either.

Facts

So you admit that PP refuse to provide mammograms?
They don't care about breast cancer.

a reply to: butcherguy

You believe dark skin is a debilitating genetic trait? Ok...

Anyway, she felt the same way about all people. Her thought was to create "perfect people" through sterilization of ALL people, regardless of color, that posed a potential threat to that perfect human ideal.

Race is much less of a factor that you believe.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Plus the hacked internal emails and communications. Anonymous is saying that it is pretty damning.

a reply to: butcherguy

You are really reaching here. As far as I know PP does manual exams and refers out for mammograms. Not offering a service is not the same thing as refusing to perform it. If a doctor doesn't have an in office X ray machine is referring patients out "refusing service"? Obviously not.

a reply to: IAMTAT

So all the other videos were proven to be highly edited and taken out context to frame PP but yet this one is somehow different?

Ignorance is at it's bliss with these hoaxers.

No thank you. I'm done with this nonsense.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: IAMTAT

FYI: 'Margie' was big on sterilizing "Colored people", immigrants, indigents, the retarded, and the handicapped.

Yes, she did, but with very specific caveats. They had to have a debilitating genetic trait, disease or "something else" to qualify.

"to qualify"?????
Lucky them.

A lie by omission is still a "lie".

Perhaps they didn't "fake" any parts of the video, but by intentionally editing out parts that give context, it's very obvious to me that there is a clear agenda to distort the truth.

Even if I was on the other side, I would be disgusted at this, and not wish to use intentionally twisted facts to support my own arguments.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: IAMTAT

FYI: 'Margie' was big on sterilizing "Colored people", immigrants, indigents, the retarded, and the handicapped.

Yes, she did, but with very specific caveats. They had to have a debilitating genetic trait, disease or "something else" to qualify.

"to qualify"?????
Lucky them.

See. You're doing exactly what these videos are doing. You're taking words out of context and presenting them in a disingenuous manner. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with this topic or with what Sanger believed, but we cannot have an honest discussion if we cannot debate logically and within context.

originally posted by: smitastrophe
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Yet the idea of eugenics and the use of Infanticide to meet that end, is a progressive creation! IMO

Politics aside on this, I think everyone can agree that this is abhorrent, and 9 more videos to go.

I have a slightly different definition for progress.

Especially when it's all hypothetical "scientific gains".

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

You believe dark skin is a debilitating genetic trait? Ok...

Anyway, she felt the same way about all people. Her thought was to create "perfect people" through sterilization of ALL people, regardless of color, that posed a potential threat to that perfect human ideal.

Race is much less of a factor that you believe.

I am part black and part American Indian.
I didn't see the word debilitating when I read your post. I see that you did an edit.
Now, seeing that Sanger played sweeties with the KKK.... maybe she saw blacks as having a debilitating genetic trait.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: butcherguy

You are really reaching here. As far as I know PP does manual exams and refers out for mammograms. Not offering a service is not the same thing as refusing to perform it. If a doctor doesn't have an in office X ray machine is referring patients out "refusing service"? Obviously not.

Why not offer it?
They offer abortions right up until 40 weeks.

a reply to: butcherguy

I did make and edit, precisely because I knew that could be taken out of context. Luckily, it was included in your reply.

Many people spoke at KKK rallies and it is not indicative of a racist agenda.

Sanger was more concerned about the perfect human, and race was not a central part of that from what I understand.

a reply to: Hefficide

As an independent atheist I have to disagree with you. I am all for abortion, and the other services PP provides.

HOWEVER, the language being used in these videos indicates a clear objective to profit off of these fetuses, and that is WRONG.

It's one thing to disagree with somebody, but making jokes about selling baby fetuses? There is something wrong with those people...

The progressive left is scary these days...considering I was one only a few years ago makes me sad.

Really, I don't understand why these videos aren't in the LOL forum.

a reply to: Danke

We have no context for knowing the actual discussion that took place as the videos are edited. How can you draw conclusions from propagandized material?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

I did make and edit, precisely because I knew that could be taken out of context. Luckily, it was included in your reply.

Many people spoke at KKK rallies and it is not indicative of a racist agenda.

Sanger was more concerned about the perfect human, and race was not a central part of that from what I understand.

Sometimes I just cant believe what I read here.

Do you really believe what you wrote? Or was it more just hoping for a reaction?

a reply to: Hefficide

The first one the transcript is available for the full dinner. It is beyond clear there was no profiteering going on and that the claims by the (I forget their name at the moment) were lies.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

I did make and edit, precisely because I knew that could be taken out of context. Luckily, it was included in your reply.

Many people spoke at KKK rallies and it is not indicative of a racist agenda.

Sanger was more concerned about the perfect human, and race was not a central part of that from what I understand.

So "race was not a central part" of Sanger's concern "about the perfect human".
Oh yeah, no racism there.

a reply to: Hefficide

In what context would this be okay?

a reply to: stosh64

I myself have spoken at a meeting of KKK members. It had nothing to do with race, it was about the 2nd amendment.

Does that make me a racist?