It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: Court Rules Against StemExpress On Undercover Planned Parenthood Videos

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: windword

Actually, love has everything to do with it. From where I stand, it takes an amazingly selfless act to offer the remains of your loved child so that others might live, might see, or might not have spend their lives hooked to machines.

So sparing the life of another with remains of a loved one is a difficult, selfless act? Wouldn't NOT providing the remains be on par with abortion?


originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: windword

Conversely, abortion IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES is a purely selfish act decided upon based on the wants of "mom" superceding any of the potential of the baby developing in her womb.

So it's bad to not allow the fetus life, but if the fetus becomes a child and dies, it is really a decision whether to donate the remains to spare lives?

Are you pro-life or pro-birth?




posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Aazadan

Look man, I want no part in whatever Richard Fleischeresque science fiction alternate universe where deceased human beings are viewed as a "resource." Call me old fashioned, but if that's the world we're building here, America can go to hell.


So do you also not support convicts being pressured to donate their bodies to science when they're killed?

How about organ donors?

I suppose we're simply going to disagree. I'm rather pragmatic. When the alternatives are study human remains or incinerate it I choose the path of study every time because it will save lives in the future. Your response reminds me of the middle ages where doctors weren't even allowed to study dead bodies in order to gain medical information because it was considered ghoulish. How many died because of a poor knowledge of anatomy, physiology, or even basic medical information such as the long term effects of alcohol? I see this entire question of should PP be selling human tissue as nothing more than a high tech version of a debate we settled hundreds of years ago.
edit on 14-8-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Aazadan

Look man, I want no part in whatever Richard Fleischeresque science fiction alternate universe where deceased human beings are viewed as a "resource." Call me old fashioned, but if that's the world we're building here, America can go to hell.

My friend, I hate to be the one to break it to you. You live in that reality right now, it's not fiction.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Not sure what is confusing you about that. There are many laws that people don't agree with...and will take the opportunity to argue or debate their side when the topic is raised.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:02 AM
link   
I would go with this idea. By default...any person's body should be left alone after death. However, any person can choose to allow their body to be used for any research, medical testing, organ donation, etc. easily. Any person that dies but has a family member that believes that person wanted to donate their body for such purposes...can speak on their behalf. But...a human that was never known by anyone and never had the opportunity to choose if they wanted their body used should fall to the default of not being used.

I'm not religious and I'm pro-choice...but I don't like the idea of anyone besides myself and my loved ones deciding that my body can be used for their, or anyone else's benefit without my permission. The "default" in my opinion should not be that others can simply take a body for their own use. It should be an opt-in...not an opt-out. We should NEVER have to file paperwork, or go to any effort to expect the natural progression. Anyone who believes otherwise...has a different agenda. Good or bad...not your choice what happens to my body.
edit on 8/14/2015 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:03 AM
link   

“People who don’t have anything to hide don’t go to court to stop journalists from reporting the truth," said Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund President Chuck LiMandri.

Except when it's a twisting of the truth and potentially slander/libel until the actual truth can be determined, but hey, it's easy to say that if you've never been accused of something.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: eNumbra

“People who don’t have anything to hide don’t go to court to stop journalists from reporting the truth," said Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund President Chuck LiMandri.

Except when it's a twisting of the truth and potentially slander/libel until the actual truth can be determined, but hey, it's easy to say that if you've never been accused of something.


Except when it's not



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: eNumbra

“People who don’t have anything to hide don’t go to court to stop journalists from reporting the truth," said Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund President Chuck LiMandri.

Except when it's a twisting of the truth and potentially slander/libel until the actual truth can be determined, but hey, it's easy to say that if you've never been accused of something.


Except when it's not

Except when I'm pointing out the flaw in the logic.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: windword


A woman's eggs, whether they are fertilized or not, are hers, part of her body.

Once fertilized, does DNA agree with you?



Abortion is nothing remotely like salvery, it's more like evicting an unwelcome guest.

Of course, eviction by lethal action. For the crime of being ''unwelcome''. If only people had better sense than to be conceived in the womb.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation




Of course, eviction by lethal action. For the crime of being ''unwelcome''. If only people had better sense than to be conceived in the womb.



Well, not always. For example, an egg may be fertilized, and travel down the Fallopian tube, but because of the pill, or an IUD, the uterus environment is too harsh for the egg to implant. So, it washes away with the woman's next period.

The fact is, an embryo can't survive out side the womb, so if it is expelled, it will die. A woman has no duty that egg, to make sure it is fertilized or nurture it if it should become fertilized. She has no duty to carry that egg to maturity; sharing her own blood, oxygen, supporting it with her skeletal structure, which is being leached of calcium, her kidneys being strained and risking high blood pressure, etc. She has no duty to risk her health, her relationships and social standing, employment opportunities, or promise 18+ years of future dedication. She has every right to personal self defense, and use whatever force is necessary to evict the unwanted guest.



Once fertilized, does DNA agree with you?


Every living thing has DNA, including viruses and mosquitoes. Your eyelashes are loaded with unique human DNA. A woman's egg has her unique DNA and a man's sperm has his unique DNA, a fertilized egg its own unique DNA. Why is the egg's DNA any more sacred than the DNA in man's sperm? DNA, in and of itself, is not a sacred thing.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: windword


A woman's egg has her unique DNA and a man's sperm has his unique DNA

Yes, they have the potential to become human beings.



a fertilized egg its own unique DNA.

Therefore not a ''part'' of the mother. The fertilized egg is itself.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

The mother should have the choice to have it removed from HER own body. If it is in HER body, she has the right to get it out of there, if she so chooses, in the way that is the safest for HER own health.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation




Therefore not a ''part'' of the mother. The fertilized egg is itself.


Oh? Was it part of her body when it was in her ovaries? It didn't stop becoming part of her body just because it was fertilized. Her egg, fertilized, now begins to function differently. Boring into her uterus, her body now grow another new organ, the placenta, also part of her body, which filters her blood and oxygen to provide nutrition for her growing body part, her embryo.

However, if it isn't part of her, what makes you think that she has no right to evict it? If it is part of her body, what makes you think she no right to eliminate it?



Yes, they have the potential to become human beings.


Only after some very fortuitous things occur. 50% of all fertilized eggs never implant or spontaneously abort, naturally. Yes, they have the potential to become people, but they aren't people, an autonomous independent person, until they're born, the cord cut and they take that first breath.

edit on 14-8-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   
The OP's headline is misleading. Given who the author of this thread is, I am not surprised.


This ruling protects free speech, however I think the edited videos can be considered libel as those who made them edited them in a malicious way to make PP look bad and trigger the emotional response that many have about abortions.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
The OP's headline is misleading. Given who the author of this thread is, I am not surprised.


This ruling protects free speech, however I think the edited videos can be considered libel as those who made them edited them in a malicious way to make PP look bad and trigger the emotional response that many have about abortions.


"Breaking Political News" usually requires an exact headline from a source.

Are you questioning the accuracy of the reports?




posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Truthrevolt.org as your source of news? Their Opinion Piece has a misleading, but catchy headline and of course you ran with it....



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Looks like there's no rebuttal.

The court ruling stands.




posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




The court ruling stands.


Yep. Free speech reigns! But, the lawsuit against CMP marches forward, even if these idiots keep insisting on incriminating themselves, video after video.

I have no doubt the Stemexpress will win the war.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen




The court ruling stands.


Yep. Free speech reigns! But, the lawsuit against CMP marches forward, even if these idiots keep insisting on incriminating themselves, video after video.

I have no doubt the Stemexpress will win the war.



Thanks. That's what I thought.

It's not always easy to interpret the legalese.

Did they know they were being videotaped? That parts confusing to me, because I thought it was illegal without consent.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen




The court ruling stands.


Yep. Free speech reigns! But, the lawsuit against CMP marches forward, even if these idiots keep insisting on incriminating themselves, video after video.

I have no doubt the Stemexpress will win the war.





Yep.

The damage will be done and the "guilty" parties will be long gone by the time anything else comes to bear fruit.

Recovery not probable.





top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join