Two activists who filmed undercover videos of Planned Parenthood charged with 15 felonies

a reply to: Krazysh0t

"That isn't an abortion."

Time is the only difference between the two.

originally posted by: fredrodgers1960
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"That isn't an abortion."

Time is the only difference between the two.

Well that and the actual birth, one of the most painful experiences a woman endures in her life. But at the same time you aren't allowed to get an abortion a few days before the birth unless it is an extreme medical emergency. So even your point about time is wrong because the cut off points from State to State put the development of the fetus WELL before the point you could call it a fully grown baby.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Anybody that obtains and releases information they don't have permission for should be charged.
Trumps taxes,
Wiki leaks,
Etc, etc,

As much as I'd like to see them going to jail for releasing the videos, that isn't why they are being charged. They are being charged for misrepresenting themselves while obtaining the videos. This is a case of fraud not a case of charging a whistleblower.

The activists face a felony count for each person covertly recorded, and an additional felony charge for criminal conspiracy to invade privacy.

The charges stem from California's state laws that require all parties to agree to recording private conversations. In some states, only one party has to know about/agree to the recording.

In other words, pulling these stunts in California was a very stupid thing to do.

It's not unlike that Playboy bunny that took photos of a nude 71 year old woman in a gym locker room, in California, and posted them to her social media. She was charged, too.

PLUS, there is a conspiracy charge to violate privacy. That one's the biggie.

(If all of this was already pointed out, sorry. I haven't read through the comments, yet.)

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Time is the only difference between the two.

a reply to: fredrodgers1960

Is that all you are going to say on the matter? Because the conversation is a bit more complicated than that. Debates are supposed to have a bit more of give and take in the conversation. Not just repeat the same thing over and over again like a robot or priest.

But then again this conversation is already settled. Abortion is legal. It's been legal since the 70's, so like I said I don't care when consciousness starts in relation to an abortion. I just merely support a woman's right to choose to abort.

a reply to: fredrodgers1960

no, there's some real major differences....
close to 90% or abortions occur in the first trimester, if my memory serves me right, not sure.. what can I say, I posted the numbers earlier today..
so, let's see if we can think of some other differences between a first trimester baby and one that's already born, or even in it's 8 or 9nth month or preganancy..
the first one, and it's a big one, is that the women could conceivably evict a fetus in those later months and does has a chance at survival.... not so with a first trimester pregnancy, which is when most occur.

the lightest of my kids weighed in a 8 lbs 14 oz.. that little first trimester fetus weighs in at a whopping 1/2 oz. and is around 2 1/2 inches long.
my babies had eyes, they could see, they had ears, they could hear, brains!!! can't really say the same about the first trimester fetus, can you...

so, you decide to dive into the metaphysical, when does awareness come into play...
well, I gave you my thoughts on the subject, and considering that no one has the answer to that question, my answer is just as good as anyone elses..
you just don't like it...

so, continue on I guess...

I'll just leave this here in defense of planned parenthood and every other health provider who would be affected by the gov't stripping funds from them because they happen to refuse not to ever even mention abortion as an option when dealing with pregnancy!

States with more Planned Parenthood clinics have fewer teen births and sexually transmitted diseases

www.washingtonpost.com... ted-diseases/?utm_term=.36f17719cd50

a reply to: dawnstar

Time is the only difference between the two.

a reply to: fredrodgers1960

well, this is what the difference of time almost meant to my family...
if it was discovered that I couldn't properly care for my children, either my husband would have had to quit his job to help me out ( and believe me, texas welfare system was not that generous back then!), or my two young children would have ended up in a foster home...
if I had fallen with the baby, it could have very well cause the baby severe injury..

and while we are at it, why don't we also include my weight increasing from around 130 to over 200 lbs!

a reply to: dawnstar

It may be best to stop responding seriously to that guy. He claimed to be requesting a serious debate, but at this point he is just trolling.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

ya, I know..

it's a non-productive past time.

a reply to: dawnstar

I'm sorry for your situation. I have two close family members trying to adopt a child since they can't conceive, so I understand.

No, I'm no troll, I understand how painful labor is, I've seen it in person 3 times, and trust me I've almost had my arms ripped off with her trying to bear the pain. I just work for a living and had an appointment to go to.

Look, my point is, if you are having consensual sex, take measures to not get pregnant in the first place. I've had plenty, and when we did the deed, I knew and understood that if she got pregnant, the consequence was to raise a child. I've used condoms, foams, whatever, BUT always knew that if something went wrong, a deal is a deal.

I simply am trying to say, that once pregnant, I think it's not right to terminate the life of a child that (if viable/healthy and not causing harm to the mother) has done nothing wrong except to be the result of a sexual encounter and fully hopes to become whatever nature intends for it to become.

I see no difference between killing an unborn child and a born one, that's my perspective and no I'm not doing/saying this because I'm some bible humping guy, I just don't think it's right to kill something before it's had a chance to live.

this is a new one...
Kelly Ann Conway did some consulting work for CMP last year.....

The Center for Medical Progress is listed as one of many that Conway consulted for in 2016. That list was made available through her Executive Branch Personnel public financial disclosure report, which the White House released on Friday night.

www.thedailybeast.com...

a reply to: dawnstar

You're stretching a bit when you imply everyone in a society supports "bombing entire villages out of existence"....or killing anyone for that matter. I don't believe in religion, but I am spiritual and do believe in GOD. Murder is murder. I could care less how you spin it...KILLING ANY HUMAN is WRONG and a civilized society should abhor ALL KILLINGS! You're justifying the killing of a viable HUMAN BEING to protect a woman's way of life. Are you kidding me? Look up the definition for "viable." We're not talking about a fatty cyst or tumor, but a growing HUMAN life form. Yeah, I do care and "worry" about a woman terminating a HUMAN baby. It's the most vulnerable and innocent of all HUMANS and you want to justify aborting it because it's an inconvenience to the mother? Should I terminate a loved one suffering from alzheimers because caring for them is inconvenient? Oh, I get it, they're still "conscious" and you're just a woman and "women just aren't seen as fully human" and "throughout the ages they've been expected by man, law, and even "God" himself to be obedient, even when they know that that obedience will harm them in the end." This rambling nonsense is just bullsh$t made up in your own demented mind. Have women been abused throughout history? Sure they have and THIS IS WRONG! Just like IT WAS WRONG for hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of male soldiers dying in senseless wars over the centuries. Just like IT WAS WRONG for slavery to have existed in this country. Grownups that sexually abuse our young IS WRONG. Why invent more excuses to justify why you, as a woman, can terminate the life of a vulnerable and innocent HUMAN LIFE? I got news for ya...EVERYONE experiences hardships in life...men, women and children. That doesn't mean you make a DESTRUCTIVE choice that ends a life! A woman has the innate quality to nurture, love and comfort others. A woman has been given a GIFT from GOD to become a loving mother if she desires. If she's unable to raise a child, there are resources available to help her, as well as childless couples longing for the opportunity to become parents. Thank God there are intelligent and righteous women and men who are against the killing of ALL humans and stand strong against misguided individuals like you who view a baby as a non-human, an inconvenience and a "threat" to a woman's way of life.

AND, queue crickets chirping.....

a reply to: shawmanfromny

A viable baby or fetus refers to the time in pregnancy when the baby, if born now and prematurely, has a reasonable chance of survival. For most hospitals in the United States the age of viability is about 24 weeks 0 days of the pregnancy though more recently viability has been considered lower, around 23 weeks and 0 days. However, being born at 23-24 weeks does not mean that most babies will survive or that if they survive they will have no problems. The chances of survival increase with each day after 24 weeks, and the risks of complications decrease.

www.babymed.com...

where have I said that approve of women aborting viable babies on grandscale? over 85% of abortions occur in the first trimester, when it's much safer to abort than it is to carry to term and deliver. once the prenancy has reached to point where viability is the issue, in most cases, it's not any safer to abort than it is to carry to term, or to deliver a premature baby... so no, I am not saying that women should be going out and aborting their viable pregnancies! but in some cases... it is necessary, in some cases, the baby will never become viable and it's the kindest thing to do for both the mother and the defected baby!

and, if you opt to consider every embryo as a viable human worthy of protection as all costs, then well, you have to accept that those jellyfish babies that are born as resembling more like blobs of see though jelly. okay accept them as human, no you have to devout money and resources to trying to save them from death.. cure their deformities, build them a bone structure and whatever else they are missing... keep them alive as long as possible!! ya know, I've searched, I can only find descriptions of these, I have never seen a picture of them... their mothers bury what even they call monsters secretly... the US, with their nuclear tests created these poor creatures!! I imagine they would want them to be buried in secret also....

we have over 22,000 people from the marshall islands living in the US, some of whom more than likely carry the defective genes that cause this defect... most probably know that there is a good possibility that they carry the gene and if they could probably would have opted to be sterilized or are using birth control, but then...
the conservative right wants to take maternity care and birth control out of the basic health insurance packages.
they want to shut down the planned parenthood clinics...
they want to end just about all of the abortions...
and, they want every conceived egg to be considered a human being, endowing them with all the protections that the constitution provides...
so, are jellyfish babies human in you opinion, do they deserve the same rights, should doctors be required to spend money and resources trying to preserve their life, can we have journalists in the nursery taking pictures of them, writing stories pointing to the evils of our past nuclear testing? heck, then they can just extend their stories onward, into all those children that have been born since we dropped agent orange in viet nam and their deformities, and then on to Iraq with it's depleted uranium...

and of course since there will be no maternity care in insurance, the parents can get zapped with a giant hospital bill because... well some people thought that they were in a better position to make decisions than those that are actually living in the situation and their doctors....

If she's unable to raise a child, there are resources available to help her, as well as childless couples longing for the opportunity to become parents.

about a decade ago, there was a young middle class couple... dad worked, mom stayed home with their two sons. Mom started feeling and yucky, passing out sometimes during the day and got herself to the doctor and they were trying to figure out what was wrong. dad had to work, it was his paychecks that payed the bills, he had no choice except go to work and hope for the best. well, that didn't work and one day, while mom was passed out, one of the kids started a fire in the house.... what were the resources available to her?? did anyone offer to come by and help her out through the day while dad worked? nope... did the gov't offer to help pay for someone to come by and help her out while dad worked, heck no, "they made too much money"!! nope, the only resource that was offered, no, more like forced onto them, was foster care for the two kids, and oh, ya, dad could pay out child support for the kids while they were in the system!! this women had doctors, medical records, supporting her story!!! but still, two kids ended up having strangers take care of them, while the parents had to through hell for close to a year to get them back home!!
no, this women's problem wasn't connected to a pregnancy, but I know there are times when a pregnancy can be just a debilitating!! you seem to placing the potential life, since a fetus still has a way to go before it makes it to birth and there's a possibility that it might not make it that far, above the lives of more than one living breathing person! ask a child if they are willing to risk the life of their mother, or live with complete strangers for a time because there's a good chance that complications are gonna pop up that will leave mom unable to function, so another sibling can join their family.. I kind of doubt if all of those kids you asked, would be wanting a brother or sister that badly!


chirp, chirp!!!

here's hoping that your taxes double from gov't funded research into how we can build a substitute bone structure in human jelly blobs!!!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: shawmanfromny

A viable baby or fetus refers to the time in pregnancy when the baby, if born now and prematurely, has a reasonable chance of survival. For most hospitals in the United States the age of viability is about 24 weeks 0 days of the pregnancy though more recently viability has been considered lower, around 23 weeks and 0 days. However, being born at 23-24 weeks does not mean that most babies will survive or that if they survive they will have no problems. The chances of survival increase with each day after 24 weeks, and the risks of complications decrease.

www.babymed.com...

where have I said that approve of women aborting viable babies on grandscale? over 85% of abortions occur in the first trimester, when it's much safer to abort than it is to carry to term and deliver. once the prenancy has reached to point where viability is the issue, in most cases, it's not any safer to abort than it is to carry to term, or to deliver a premature baby... so no, I am not saying that women should be going out and aborting their viable pregnancies! but in some cases... it is necessary, in some cases, the baby will never become viable and it's the kindest thing to do for both the mother and the defected baby!

and, if you opt to consider every embryo as a viable human worthy of protection as all costs, then well, you have to accept that those jellyfish babies that are born as resembling more like blobs of see though jelly. okay accept them as human, no you have to devout money and resources to trying to save them from death.. cure their deformities, build them a bone structure and whatever else they are missing... keep them alive as long as possible!! ya know, I've searched, I can only find descriptions of these, I have never seen a picture of them... their mothers bury what even they call monsters secretly... the US, with their nuclear tests created these poor creatures!! I imagine they would want them to be buried in secret also....

we have over 22,000 people from the marshall islands living in the US, some of whom more than likely carry the defective genes that cause this defect... most probably know that there is a good possibility that they carry the gene and if they could probably would have opted to be sterilized or are using birth control, but then...
the conservative right wants to take maternity care and birth control out of the basic health insurance packages.
they want to shut down the planned parenthood clinics...
they want to end just about all of the abortions...
and, they want every conceived egg to be considered a human being, endowing them with all the protections that the constitution provides...
so, are jellyfish babies human in you opinion, do they deserve the same rights, should doctors be required to spend money and resources trying to preserve their life, can we have journalists in the nursery taking pictures of them, writing stories pointing to the evils of our past nuclear testing? heck, then they can just extend their stories onward, into all those children that have been born since we dropped agent orange in viet nam and their deformities, and then on to Iraq with it's depleted uranium...

and of course since there will be no maternity care in insurance, the parents can get zapped with a giant hospital bill because... well some people thought that they were in a better position to make decisions than those that are actually living in the situation and their doctors....

If she's unable to raise a child, there are resources available to help her, as well as childless couples longing for the opportunity to become parents.

about a decade ago, there was a young middle class couple... dad worked, mom stayed home with their two sons. Mom started feeling and yucky, passing out sometimes during the day and got herself to the doctor and they were trying to figure out what was wrong. dad had to work, it was his paychecks that payed the bills, he had no choice except go to work and hope for the best. well, that didn't work and one day, while mom was passed out, one of the kids started a fire in the house.... what were the resources available to her?? did anyone offer to come by and help her out through the day while dad worked? nope... did the gov't offer to help pay for someone to come by and help her out while dad worked, heck no, "they made too much money"!! nope, the only resource that was offered, no, more like forced onto them, was foster care for the two kids, and oh, ya, dad could pay out child support for the kids while they were in the system!! this women had doctors, medical records, supporting her story!!! but still, two kids ended up having strangers take care of them, while the parents had to through hell for close to a year to get them back home!!
no, this women's problem wasn't connected to a pregnancy, but I know there are times when a pregnancy can be just a debilitating!! you seem to placing the potential life, since a fetus still has a way to go before it makes it to birth and there's a possibility that it might not make it that far, above the lives of more than one living breathing person! ask a child if they are willing to risk the life of their mother, or live with complete strangers for a time because there's a good chance that complications are gonna pop up that will leave mom unable to function, so another sibling can join their family.. I kind of doubt if all of those kids you asked, would be wanting a brother or sister that badly!


chirp, chirp!!!

here's hoping that your taxes double from gov't funded research into how we can build a substitute bone structure in human jelly blobs!!!

I've said over and over, if the baby isn't viable or the mother is in imminent danger, then I have no issues aborting the child.

If it's viable, and healthy, and there is no imminent danger to the mother, the baby should be allowed to grow to maturity, and have a chance at being a human.