PDA

View Full Version : selling body parts?



Bluesky
07-15-2015, 01:05 PM
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/ghouls.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnU

Unbelievable!!

And I will bet our MSM will remain quiet about this.

RWGR
07-15-2015, 05:23 PM
Damn right the MSM will scramble to hide this.

This first attempt will be to sweep it under the rug. If not successful then the next attempt will be to label all those who want answers over this as extremist right-wingers who want the government involved in every aspect of our private lives.

Then, the person who filmed this discreetly will be vilified, with the MSM not content until the world believes this person is some nutcase who cannot be believed.

Welcome to the world of the liberal elites.

Westender 3
07-15-2015, 08:19 PM
Damn right the MSM will scramble to hide this.

This first attempt will be to sweep it under the rug. If not successful then the next attempt will be to label all those who want answers over this as extremist right-wingers who want the government involved in every aspect of our private lives.

Then, the person who filmed this discreetly will be vilified, with the MSM not content until the world believes this person is some nutcase who cannot be believed.

Welcome to the world of the liberal elites.


Nice rant. You have all your conspiracy bases covered. Sadly for you there was no "selling" and this legal practice has been going on for decades.

http://www.myinstants.com/instant/fail-horn/

Bluesky
07-16-2015, 08:22 AM
Of couse supporters of Planned Parenthood will deny this.

RWGR
07-16-2015, 09:38 AM
Nice rant. You have all your conspiracy bases covered. Sadly for you there was no "selling" and this legal practice has been going on for decades.



Source? Link?

RWGR
07-16-2015, 09:42 AM
Of couse supporters of Planned Parenthood will deny this.

Did a quick perusal of the morning news shows today. Saw two mentions of this story: Fox News and CNN. Seems the others (ABC. CBS, NBC, MSNBC) either ignored the story again, or quickly talked about it in a segment I missed. After all, the killing of babies and selling their parts is not really newsworthy; Caitlyn Jenner's speech at the ESPY Awards last night in Los Angeles, now that got wall-to-wall media coverage.

As for the CNN coverage of the Planned Parenthood sting, it was about thirty seconds long, and it ended with a statement by PP saying the guy who filmed the footage is an "anti-abortionist" (geez, ya think???), and the footage was "heavily edited".

Scrambling for cover. Luckily for PP they have a willing MSM to help them slither out of this one.

Bluesky
07-16-2015, 10:48 AM
Planned Parenthood called the video “heavily edited, secretly recorded,” and said that it “portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research.”
The Center for Medical Progress also released over two hours of what it said was unedited video of the conversation. As in the case of previous revelations of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood, the group goes after the accuser more than the accusations.

Al Mohler is pretty careful about ferreting out the truth. Here is his take.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2015/07/15/a-lot-of-people-want-intact-hearts-these-days-planned-parenthood-abortion-and-the-conscience-of-a-nation/

Bluesky
07-16-2015, 10:51 AM
And here is a statement from the Center for Medical Progress


Planned Parenthood makes two key admissions in their statement today: 1) aborted fetal parts are harvested at their clinics, and 2) money is exchanged in connection with this. They also tell several lies: 1) That proper consent is obtained from patients, 2) That Planned Parenthood does not make money off the body parts, and 3) that everything is legal.

The Center for Medical Progress has obtained an advertisement to Planned Parenthood clinics (http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/StemExpress-flyer.pdf) from StemExpress, LLC, one of the major purchasers of Planned Parenthood’s aborted fetal tissue. This flyer advertises 4 different times the financial benefit that Planned Parenthood clinics can receive from supplying fetal tissue, with the words: “Financially Profitable,” “Financial Profits,” “financial benefit to your clinic,” “fiscal growth of your own clinic.” The advertisement carries an endorsement from Planned Parenthood Medical Director Dr. Dorothy Furgerson.

None of this is standard across the mainstream medical field, but it is standard across Planned Parenthood’s insular and unaccountable abortion field.

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/2015/07/cmp-statement-in-reply-to-planned-parenthoods-cover-up-of-baby-parts-sales/

Bluesky
07-16-2015, 10:55 AM
Nice rant. You have all your conspiracy bases covered. Sadly for you there was no "selling" and this legal practice has been going on for decades.

http://www.myinstants.com/instant/fail-horn/

Now there is a rigorous argument! Can I use that in my next Logic 101 class?

Bluesky
07-16-2015, 12:11 PM
More on this - http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2015/july/planned-parenthood.html

RWGR
07-16-2015, 12:17 PM
there was no "selling"




In the video, Dr. Nucatola suggests that a cost of $30 to $100 would be a likely range of charges for organs and tissues harvested from aborted babies. She also tells the group that Planned Parenthood does not want to be seen as profiting from the sale of such organs

A senior director of the very organization you're attempting to defend has dismantled your words.

Quit while you're behind.

RWGR
07-16-2015, 12:20 PM
there was no "selling"



From Planned Parenthood's brochure: "...contributing to the fiscal growth of your own clinic."

Bluesky
07-16-2015, 12:54 PM
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/16/the-bad-worse-ugly-media-coverage-of-planned-parenthoods-organ-harvesting-scandal

RWGR
07-16-2015, 04:16 PM
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/16/the-bad-worse-ugly-media-coverage-of-planned-parenthoods-organ-harvesting-scandal

allow me if I may ...


Damn right the MSM will scramble to hide this.

This first attempt will be to sweep it under the rug.

.

Westender 3
07-16-2015, 04:20 PM
In the video, Dr. Nucatola suggests that a cost of $30 to $100 would be a likely range of charges for organs and tissues harvested from aborted babies. She also tells the group that Planned Parenthood does not want to be seen as profiting from the sale of such organs

A senior director of the very organization you're attempting to defend has dismantled your words.

Quit while you're behind.

and now for the full quote.

NUCATOLA: You know, I'm -- I could throw a number out that's anywhere from $30 to $100 depending on the facility, and what's involved. It just has to do with space issues, are you sending someone there that's going to be doing everything, or is their staff going to be doing it? What exactly are they going to be doing? Is there shipping involved, is somebody coming to pick it up -- so, I think everybody just wants to -- it's really just about if anyone were ever to ask them, well what do you do for this $60, how can you justify that? Or are you basically just doing something completely egregious, that you should be doing for free. So it just needs to be justifiable.

RWGR
07-16-2015, 04:23 PM
NUCATOLA: You know, I'm -- I could throw a number out that's anywhere from $30 to $100 depending on the facility

much obliged!! :) :) :)

RWGR
07-16-2015, 04:24 PM
So let me ask you Westy, are you okay with selling organs from aborted fetuses?

Westender 3
07-16-2015, 04:24 PM
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/16/the-bad-worse-ugly-media-coverage-of-planned-parenthoods-organ-harvesting-scandal

Also from the Fedaralist.

Despite CMP’s findings, if organs are not harvested “for the purpose of transplantation,” then what Planned Parenthood has done is legal. As reported by Joe Carter for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission:

In light of the discussion, the video mentions two federal laws related to organ selling. Unfortunately, neither of these laws appear to be applicable to this issue or to the discussions in the video.

42 U.S. Code 274e prohibits the purchase of human organs, including any organs derived from a fetus, for the purposes of human transplantation. Because the fetal tissue is likely to be used for research purposes rather than be transplanted into a living human, this law most likely does not apply.

42 U.S. Code 289g covers the prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue and states that, ‘It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.’

In each of these laws, the term ‘valuable consideration’ does not include ‘reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.’

In the video the representative from Planned Parenthood (PP) makes it clear that the clinics ‘do not want to be perceived as, “This clinic is selling tissue, this clinic is making money off of this.’” Provided that the price set by the clinics is considered ‘reasonable payment’ for the services listed above, the PP affiliates are likely not violating any federal laws.

This law (42 U.S. Code 289g) prevents the solicitation of fetal tissue for transplantation and the ‘solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes.’ What this means is that a buyer cannot solicit fetal tissue for transplantation or use tissue from a fetus that is known to have been created solely for the purpose of aborting the baby and extracting its tissue and/or organs.

But this seems to cover only human tissue that was acquired when the pregnancy was ‘deliberately initiated to provide such tissue.’ Tissue donated after an abortion for research purposes appears to be completely legal under federal law.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton lifted a moratorium on federal funding of research involving transplantation of fetal tissue from induced abortions. This policy has not changed. Because of this policy, tissue from aborted fetuses may be used for therapeutic purposes as long women donated the material following their decision to have an abortion.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/15/planned-parenthoods-still-legally-free-to-traffic-baby-body-parts/


Just because this offends your delicate sensibilities doesn't make it illegal.

Westender 3
07-16-2015, 04:27 PM
So let me ask you Westy, are you okay with selling organs from aborted fetuses?

Donating sure. There was no selling despite your right wing narrative.

RWGR
07-16-2015, 04:28 PM
In 1993, President Bill Clinton lifted a moratorium on federal funding of research involving transplantation of fetal tissue from induced abortions. This policy has not changed. Because of this policy, tissue from aborted fetuses may be used for therapeutic purposes as long women donated the material following their decision to have an abortion.

Totally, 100% different from the issue at hand: the selling of actual parts, not just tissue, plus the women that go to PP are not told parts of their babies might be sold on the body parts market.

You'll have to do much better, sorry.

RWGR
07-16-2015, 04:29 PM
Donating sure. There was no selling despite your right wing narrative.

"donated"

How can you donate and get money back?

And did the mothers know that parts of their children would be treated in this way?

RWGR
07-16-2015, 04:34 PM
So to look at the wider picture, modern liberalism is for, among other things, gay marriage and the killing of the unborn. In other words, two things that would wipe out our species in quick order if they were ever adopted as regular practice at a much more significant level.

Can anyone, anyone, tell me how modern liberalism makes sense in any way, shape, or form?

Westender 3
07-16-2015, 05:52 PM
So to look at the wider picture, modern liberalism is for, among other things, gay marriage and the killing of the unborn. In other words, two things that would wipe out our species in quick order if they were ever adopted as regular practice at a much more significant level.

Can anyone, anyone, tell me how modern liberalism makes sense in any way, shape, or form?

We get it. You're outraged... again.

Barry Morris
07-16-2015, 06:31 PM
We get it. You're outraged... again.

Have you noticed that you're considering the parts human but the fetus not??

Westender 3
07-16-2015, 07:14 PM
Rep. Tim Murphy, a member of the House Pro-Life Caucus and chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee looking into the video, said at a Wednesday news conference he’d seen the clip weeks before. Asked afterward why he and others waited until this week to take action, Murphy struggled for an answer before abruptly ending the interview with CQ Roll Call, saying he should not be quoted and remarking, “This interview didn’t happen.”

Here’s an excerpt from CQ Roll Call’s hallway chat with Murphy:

CQ Roll Call: “So, what I wondered was, what’s happened in those few weeks? Why is it coming out now and not earlier?”

Murphy: “Um, I don’t know why. All I know is I saw it and he said he was going to post it eventually, so that’s all I know.”

...

Another Pro-Life Caucus and Judiciary committee member, GOP Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, said Wednesday he had also seen the video about a month ago.

Asked why steps weren’t taken immediately after he viewed the video, Franks said in an email, “The hope was to have as much information as possible so that the authorities could be notified effectively before the media.”

http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/interview-didnt-happen/?dcz=


Hmmm. You'd almost think the outrage was co-ordinated by the right wing noise machine to rile up the base.

Barry Morris
07-16-2015, 07:17 PM
......Hmmm. You'd almost think the outrage was co-ordinated by the right wing noise machine to rile up the base.

If it was, they learned that tactic from the left!!!

Westender 3
07-16-2015, 07:22 PM
If it was, they learned that tactic from the left!!!

Certainly. Except it always backfires for the right. Another big nothingburger.

dancingqueen
07-17-2015, 01:30 AM
I don't understand what's wrong with selling parts of an aborted fetus....

RWGR
07-17-2015, 09:11 AM
We get it. You're outraged... again.

So you can't provide even a basic defense for the ideology you subscribe to.

Thank you for admitting as much.

RWGR
07-17-2015, 09:37 AM
Rep. Tim Murphy, a member of the House Pro-Life Caucus and chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee looking into the video, said at a Wednesday news conference he’d seen the clip weeks before. Asked afterward why he and others waited until this week to take action, Murphy struggled for an answer before abruptly ending the interview with CQ Roll Call, saying he should not be quoted and remarking, “This interview didn’t happen.”

Here’s an excerpt from CQ Roll Call’s hallway chat with Murphy:

CQ Roll Call: “So, what I wondered was, what’s happened in those few weeks? Why is it coming out now and not earlier?”

Murphy: “Um, I don’t know why. All I know is I saw it and he said he was going to post it eventually, so that’s all I know.”

...

Another Pro-Life Caucus and Judiciary committee member, GOP Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, said Wednesday he had also seen the video about a month ago.

Asked why steps weren’t taken immediately after he viewed the video, Franks said in an email, “The hope was to have as much information as possible so that the authorities could be notified effectively before the media.”

http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/interview-didnt-happen/?dcz=


Hmmm. You'd almost think the outrage was co-ordinated by the right wing noise machine to rile up the base.

K...can anyone tell me what this is supposed to prove??

RWGR
07-17-2015, 09:40 AM
I don't understand what's wrong with selling parts of an aborted fetus....

Well, first of all, if an aborted fetus has viable 'parts', would it not lead to the conclusion that the whole of those parts (the baby itself) is viable, thus aborting it is killing it?

Second, as far as I can tell the mothers are not told this is an option.

Third, have we devalued human beings down to being sell-able commodities on the open market? The selling of human beings to other human beings for the purpose of slavery is now considered an outrage, and beneath the dignity of who we are. But selling parts of a human being is seen as okay?

How does that work?

BFLPE
07-17-2015, 10:42 AM
Well, first of all, if an aborted fetus has viable 'parts', would it not lead to the conclusion that the whole of those parts (the baby itself) is viable, thus aborting it is killing it? It's not exactly breaking news that abortion is the murder of a viable human being.

Abortion is an ugly reality. It is legal though. Since it does happen I don't see a problem with using the organs/tissue for research.

The mother has to consent, similar to me signing an organ donor card allowing my parts to be used for science or transplant upon my demise.

The organs cannot be sold, therefore there is no financial incentive to abort a child.

Whether PP is getting the proper consent and is not profiting in any way are the real questions and I doubt there will be any proof of widespread violations of those rules. It's not like PP is enticing young women with money to abort.

Though disturbing this will likely turn out to be a non story.

The only good thing is that it may be an eye opening moment for some.

Bluesky
07-17-2015, 11:00 AM
I don't understand what's wrong with selling parts of an aborted fetus....

If this is being done for profit, then the motive to abort a baby (supposedly) for the welfare of the mother can easily becoming secondary to the primary motive of harvesting another body to maximize profits. Thus greed becomes a motive for counselling young vulnerable girls to abort their babies. And from their its downhill all the way.

dancingqueen
07-17-2015, 02:37 PM
If this is being done for profit, then the motive to abort a baby (supposedly) for the welfare of the mother can easily becoming secondary to the primary motive of harvesting another body to maximize profits. Thus greed becomes a motive for counselling young vulnerable girls to abort their babies. And from their its downhill all the way.

Hmmm, fair enough. An interesting point to ponder.

Westender 3
07-17-2015, 05:10 PM
If this is being done for profit, then the motive to abort a baby (supposedly) for the welfare of the mother can easily becoming secondary to the primary motive of harvesting another body to maximize profits. Thus greed becomes a motive for counselling young vulnerable girls to abort their babies. And from their its downhill all the way.

Fortunately, your slippery slope arguments never come to fruition.

Westender 3
07-17-2015, 05:23 PM
K...can anyone tell me what this is supposed to prove??

It proves there was no wrongdoing. If it wasn't unlawful weeks ago, it's not unlawful now despite the howling of the right wing PC police. Of course it won't sop GOP from having 15 or so Babyghazi! investigations that go nowhere. You've been duped again. LOL

Barry Morris
07-17-2015, 07:05 PM
Fortunately, your slippery slope arguments never come to fruition.

They probably said that after Roe v. Wade.

58 million abortions later......

Westender 3
07-17-2015, 07:38 PM
They probably said that after Roe v. Wade.

58 million abortions later......

So there were abortions after it became legal. Where's the slippery slope?

Barry Morris
07-17-2015, 07:41 PM
So there were abortions after it became legal. Where's the slippery slope?

In the number, and with your lack of any feeling about it.

Westender 3
07-17-2015, 07:55 PM
In the number, and with your lack of any feeling about it.

Was there a quota or minimum established by the Supreme Court. What do my feelings have to do with a slippery slope.

Barry Morris
07-17-2015, 10:18 PM
Was there a quota or minimum established by the Supreme Court. What do my feelings have to do with a slippery slope.

The feelings of the people about any moral issue become numbed by the continuous push for those who demand the right to do anything their heart desires.

You keep harping about the legality of this selling (which you also deny), but have you considered just how these parts are obtained?? I'd bet even 15 or 20 years ago most of would be ready to bomb abortion clinics ourselves after hearing of such things. Now, eh, live and let live.

Or in this case, Kill 'em and sell the bits!!! No problem. Kill millions, half of whom were girls who never grew up to HAVE A CHOICE!!!

Curious where you might draw the line.

Anapeg
07-17-2015, 11:03 PM
Hypothetically, those for killing, dissecting and selling of fetuses would, in turn, back parents of an unborn cutting out the middle man. They would have their unborn killed, dissected and sold for a profit so as to care for the kids they decided were worth keeping.

Barry Morris
07-17-2015, 11:45 PM
Hypothetically, those for killing, dissecting and selling of fetuses would, in turn, back parents of an unborn cutting out the middle man. They would have their unborn killed, dissected and sold for a profit so as to care for the kids they decided were worth keeping.

And it is safer for the mother to give birth to the child, instead of abortion, and THEN sell it!!! After all, it's only a matter of days, really.

RWGR
07-18-2015, 09:54 AM
It proves there was no wrongdoing. If it wasn't unlawful weeks ago, it's not unlawful now despite the howling of the right wing PC police. Of course it won't sop GOP from having 15 or so Babyghazi! investigations that go nowhere. You've been duped again. LOL

It proves nothing like that at all.

You're scrambling to defend the fact your ideology kills babies and sells body parts.

I'd be scrambling, too.

Bluesky
07-18-2015, 04:09 PM
Fortunately, your slippery slope arguments never come to fruition.

Actually, it seems that the slippery slope comes to fruition in several recent cases that we have seen. We have seen it in the in the gay marriage debate .. abortion debate and euthansia debate.

In each case, the slippery slope was argued, and poo pooed.. yet down the slope they did go...

BFLPE
07-19-2015, 04:14 AM
Actually, it seems that the slippery slope comes to fruition in several recent cases that we have seen. We have seen it in the in the gay marriage debate ...I have to ask. What has the slippery slope of gay marriage led to?

BFLPE
07-19-2015, 04:24 AM
As always, context is important. When an anti abortion version of PETA releases a video it seems odd people would be so quick to assume the worst but I guess when it fits your agenda it's easy to accept.

The idea they are selling the tissue and organs of fetuses is what everyone is jumping at yet PP says they are not selling them.

Though I would like to see Planned Parenthood (with a name like that just what the hell are they doing in the business of helping parents kill their children) with their hand in the cookie jar I find it hard to believe they would be that stupid.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jul/17/planned-parenthood-video-context/

Bluesky
07-19-2015, 07:59 AM
I have to ask. What has the slippery slope of gay marriage led to?

It's probably too early in the game to point to actual facts, but read what some of the dissenting judges in the US supreme court said in this opinion piece.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/29/wesley-pruden-slippery-slope-of-supreme-court-gay-/

RWGR
07-21-2015, 06:37 PM
A second undercover video shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Medical Directors’ Council President, Dr. Mary Gatter, haggling over payments for intact fetal specimens and offering to use a “less crunchy technique” to get more intact body parts.

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/2015/07/second-planned-parenthood-senior-executive-haggles-over-baby-parts-prices-changes-abortion-methods/

RWGR
07-21-2015, 06:41 PM
Dr. Mary Gatter, President of Planned Parenthood’s Medical Director’s Council, is asked, “What would you expect for intact tissue?”

Gatter starts to haggle immediately, “Why don’t you start by telling me what you’re used to paying?”

When pushed for a number, Gatter says, “Well, you know in negotiations the person who throws out the figure first is at a loss, right? So…”

When pushed again for how much her Planned Parenthood affiliate is willing to sell baby body parts for, she responds, “Okay, $75.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/21/new-video-shows-another-planned-parenthood-doctor-haggling-price-of-baby-body-parts/

Barry Morris
07-21-2015, 09:42 PM
I have to ask. What has the slippery slope of gay marriage led to?

Requests to legalize bigamy.

BFLPE
07-22-2015, 12:11 PM
And how would you be affected if that were to happen?

Other than your horse feeling higher I mean.

RWGR
07-22-2015, 01:26 PM
His horse smokes pot?

Barry Morris
07-22-2015, 05:21 PM
And how would you be affected if that were to happen?

Other than your horse feeling higher I mean.

Maybe you should trying applying your logic to any other set of laws.

Like, if you speed down a street on the other side of town, why should that affect me?? It doesn't, so why should I care about speeding laws??

Live and let live is OK, I guess, until someone holds a gun to your head.

BFLPE
07-22-2015, 06:08 PM
If I speed down a street I could hurt someone else, maybe even someone you know.

On the other hand, if two men want to make a commitment to each other that won't harm me or you. Its their business.

I'm against changing the meaning of words but not for the same reasons as you. As I read in a link on a thread about this some want to legislate morality. Good luck.

Barry Morris
07-22-2015, 07:26 PM
If I speed down a street I could hurt someone else, maybe even someone you know.

On the other hand, if two men want to make a commitment to each other that won't harm me or you. Its their business.

I'm against changing the meaning of words but not for the same reasons as you. As I read in a link on a thread about this some want to legislate morality. Good luck.

Wait a bit, why do you think I'm against this?? I know darn well that you can't legislate morality. Two people's busines is their business. I don't want to change the meaning of words.

So what do you assume my problem is??

BFLPE
07-23-2015, 08:25 PM
Your problem? Didn't say you have a problem, though we all have problems.


I assume your opposition to the word Marriage being applied any relationship other than the traditional heterosexual couple is due to your religious beliefs.

Barry Morris
07-23-2015, 08:50 PM
...I assume your opposition to the word Marriage being applied any relationship other than the traditional heterosexual couple is due to your religious beliefs.

Nope. Because of evolution's theory about the survival of the fittest.

BFLPE
07-23-2015, 11:22 PM
Ok, lol.

Barry Morris
07-23-2015, 11:25 PM
Ok, lol.

Yeah, I laugh too, cause no one want's to go there!! :) :) :)

dancingqueen
07-23-2015, 11:50 PM
Nope. Because of evolution's theory about the survival of the fittest.

So you are against gay marriages because of that?
What about insulin pumps, glasses, canes, etc... Our society has already made "survival of the fittest" moot a loooooong time ago.

Barry Morris
07-24-2015, 08:30 AM
So you are against gay marriages because of that?
What about insulin pumps, glasses, canes, etc... Our society has already made "survival of the fittest" moot a loooooong time ago.

That's one "justification" I suppose.

BFLPE
07-24-2015, 03:02 PM
Since you say the slippery slope of gay marriage could lead to legalizing bigamy I assume you are against bigamy. Surely that can't be based on your survival of the fittest reasoning. So why do you oppose bigamy?

Barry Morris
07-24-2015, 04:44 PM
Since you say the slippery slope of gay marriage could lead to legalizing bigamy I assume you are against bigamy. Surely that can't be based on your survival of the fittest reasoning. So why do you oppose bigamy?

Near as I can see, the bible only restricts a man to one wife in specific circumstances, ie leadership. Since it was written at a time when men were considered to be "in charge", it doesn't mention two men with one woman.

But you will never find anything positive about bigamy in scripture. And very, very few women would be happy sharing a husband, IMO.

And a man would be crazy to have two wives, again IMO.

But don't be concerned, legal bigamy, polygamy, polyandry, incest, you name it, will all be coming.

Marriage is a tried and true convention for the nurture and raising of children. Modern mores will eventually give us children totally amoral.

RWGR
07-24-2015, 04:50 PM
We already have an amoral society, because we've been conditioned to believe values, and notions of right and wrong, are merely subjective, to each their own.

Most liberals will tell you there are no truths, other than the truth there are no truths.

Yes, they are that confused and deluded.

BFLPE
07-24-2015, 09:30 PM
Near as I can see, the bible only restricts a man to one wife in specific circumstances, ie leadership. Since it was written at a time when men were considered to be "in charge", it doesn't mention two men with one woman.

But you will never find anything positive about bigamy in scripture. And very, very few women would be happy sharing a husband, IMO.

And a man would be crazy to have two wives, again IMO.

But don't be concerned, legal bigamy, polygamy, polyandry, incest, you name it, will all be coming.

Marriage is a tried and true convention for the nurture and raising of children. Modern mores will eventually give us children totally amoral.The question was, why do you oppose bigamy? That doesn't answer the question.

Barry Morris
07-24-2015, 09:49 PM
The question was, why do you oppose bigamy? .

Because my wife would object.

dancingqueen
07-24-2015, 11:11 PM
That's one "justification" I suppose.

So you are against things like grocery stores, social security, hospitals, glasses... etc
Again, "Survival of the Fittest" went away a long time ago, because if it didn't, you would likely have been dead a long time ago.



"Survival of the Fittest", I don't think it means what you think it means.

Barry Morris
07-25-2015, 12:31 AM
So you are against things like grocery stores, social security, hospitals, glasses... etc
Again, "Survival of the Fittest" went away a long time ago, because if it didn't, you would likely have been dead a long time ago.

"Survival of the Fittest", I don't think it means what you think it means.

I think you don't want it to mean what it does.

From the first caveman who was smart enough to realize he could eat better if he used a simple club to get prey, man has gotten smarter all the time. He uses technology to increase the chances of survival for himself AND for his offspring.

But if he does not reproduce, those genes are lost. His neighbor does survive, along with his children, and HIS genes are the fittest.

dancingqueen
07-25-2015, 03:06 AM
But you are completely ignoring the other part of "Survival of the Fittest"
If we went by that, you likely would be dead by now given the way you talk down to people, but as it stands we have laws that protect those that cannot protect themselves.
Are you against laws Barry?

Barry Morris
07-25-2015, 10:14 AM
But you are completely ignoring the other part of "Survival of the Fittest"
If we went by that, you likely would be dead by now given the way you talk down to people, but as it stands we have laws that protect those that cannot protect themselves.
Are you against laws Barry?

If disagreeing with you is "talking down", I must plead guilty. Every Christian is, and knows that, he is a sinner saved by grace.

Start a new thread about laws if you wish.

Survival of the fittest means that the unfit do not pass on their genes. You COULD, perhaps with technology, pass them on. But not truly within the bounds of faithful marriage. Which is an odd contradiction, considering recent changes to laws.

One other fact. The deadliest weapon man has is between his ears. That is why he is at the top of the food chain.

RWGR
07-25-2015, 12:55 PM
One other fact. The deadliest weapon man has is between his ears. That is why he is at the top of the food chain.

I would have thought it is because God made man in His image.

Guess not. Guess it's just a Darwinian event.

BFLPE
07-25-2015, 05:11 PM
Because my wife would object.So survival of the fittest doesn't apply, religious beliefs don't apply, but it's simply because if you can't do it no one should be allowed?

dancingqueen
07-25-2015, 05:41 PM
Survival of the fittest means that the unfit do not pass on their genes.

Ahhh typical google warrior fashion....
You must know it all because you googled it...
No, there is so much more to the idea of Survival of the Fittest than what you are saying.
As for the deadliest weapon mankind has being their brain... Yes, this is true, I don't see how this fits into the argument though except that some people have bigger brains than other people and if SOTF was something that mattered anymore our brains would be bigger and less varied. But as it turns out, we have great variety in intelligence around, because we do not allow the less intelligent to simply die off.

dancingqueen
07-25-2015, 05:43 PM
I would have thought it is because God made man in His image.

Guess not. Guess it's just a Darwinian event.

Interesting side note:
Wouldn't it be interesting if God made evolution in order to satisfy the innate curiosity of his creations?

Anapeg
07-25-2015, 06:34 PM
Survival of the fittest is fast becoming survival of the richest. That being said, were survival of the fittest carried to it's logical conclusion the lame, the infirm, the mentally inept would then die. We, as humans would out of necessity lower our moral standards. Those minus parents would perish as well. As an aside, man is not, truly, at the pinnacle of the food chain. Take a walk in grizzly territory, or a swim where sharks are prevalent or sashay in-front of a group of hungry large cats and let me know how it works out for you. We are at the top of the food chain under most circumstances. This is subject to change without any notice.

RWGR
07-25-2015, 06:52 PM
Interesting side note:
Wouldn't it be interesting if God made evolution in order to satisfy the innate curiosity of his creations?

Whatever His reasons, the Catholic Church is very comfortable in saying Evolution may indeed be true, just not Darwinian Evolution

Barry Morris
07-28-2015, 07:40 PM
"She was quoted advocating "a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/opinions/carson-planned-parenthood/index.html

KDawg
07-28-2015, 08:19 PM
This video of Planned Parenthood selling aborted baby body parts like they were commodities is very disturbing...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=10&v=Xw2xi9mhmuo

KDawg
07-28-2015, 08:24 PM
Planned Parenthood has enlisted high-profile Washington public relations firm SKDKnickerbocker as it scrambles to deal with the ongoing scandal and release of a third undercover (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/third-planned-parenthood-video-out-120712.html?hp=l6_4)video (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/third-planned-parenthood-video-out-120712.html?hp=l6_4) Tuesday showing a clinic’s staff handling fetal tissue after an abortion. The additional PR firepower reflects the growing pressure on the women’s health organization amid building GOP calls to cut its $540 million in government funding.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/planned-parenthood-crisis-communications-firm-video-120725.html


Planned Parenthood is evil.

BFLPE
07-28-2015, 08:45 PM
"She was quoted advocating "a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."You're not the only promoting survival of the fittest I see.

Barry Morris
07-28-2015, 11:23 PM
You're not the only promoting survival of the fittest I see.

Interesting conclusion.

Barry Morris
07-30-2015, 12:00 AM
They sell chopped up baby parts, but they go nuts when somebody shoots a lion.

RWGR
07-30-2015, 05:57 PM
In a previous video Ginde is caught talking about the prices of intact body parts and, looking at the body of a child in a petri dish, concluded that the pieces sold separately would run to $200-$300.

In this new video there are more scenes in the pathology lab where Planned Parenthood personnel and picking through body parts in a petri dish. At one point there is a cracking sound and a medical assistant says it’s the cracking of the baby’s skull.

Dr. Ginde laughs and says, “It’s a baby.”

Referring to the value of an intact heart laying in the dish, a medical assistant is heard to say, “five stars.”

Looking for legs and finding them, the assistant announces, “Another boy.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/30/video-planned-parenthood-doctor-on-how-to-avoid-getting-caught-selling-baby-parts/

KDawg
08-20-2015, 08:13 PM
Here's yet another disgusting video courtesy of Planned Parenthood killing a live baby. Why aren't these evil b.astards at PP in jail?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=16&v=FzMAycMMXp8

RWGR
08-20-2015, 09:17 PM
Because we live in a culture of death, and PP has most of the media on their side.

Westender 3
01-26-2016, 09:31 AM
A grand jury convened to investigate whether a Houston Planned Parenthood clinic had sold the organs of aborted fetuses on Monday cleared the clinic and instead indicted the undercover videographers behind the allegations, surprising the officials who called for the probe and delighting supporters of the women's health organization.

The Harris County grand jury indicted David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, both of California, on charges of tampering with a governmental record, a second-degree felony with a possible sentence of up to 20 years in prison. It also charged Daleiden, the leader of the videographers, with the same misdemeanor he had alleged – the purchase or sale of human organs, presumably because he had offered to buy in an attempt to provoke Planned Parenthood employees into saying they would sell.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Harris-grand-jury-indicts-pair-behind-Planned-6782865.php


Another major loss for the dishonest forced birth crowd. Numerous state investigations into Planned Parenthood and you got nothing. Another win for a women's right to choose. All we need now are some charges against the GOP for collusion with this radical group, Center for Medical Progress. LMAO.

RWGR
01-26-2016, 09:36 AM
"forced birth"

wow, the fact you typed that, and thought it was a viable statement, is so telling.

Westender 3
01-26-2016, 09:53 AM
"forced birth"

wow, the fact you typed that, and thought it was a viable statement, is so telling.


Telling in that the truth stings the forced birth crowd as evidenced by your quick reply. How does it feel to lose over and over? Whatever will you do when pro-abortion Donnie Trump wins the GOP nomination. LOL

RWGR
01-26-2016, 10:22 AM
"forced birth"

You're a good soldier in the Culture of Death

Barry Morris
01-26-2016, 11:40 AM
Telling in that the truth stings the forced birth crowd as evidenced by your quick reply. How does it feel to lose over and over? Whatever will you do when pro-abortion Donnie Trump wins the GOP nomination. LOL

Tell us what you think about the 50 percent of aborted babies, females, who will never get a choice.

How does it feel to lose over and over?? You forget that Christians believe that we will win, and the ultimate, eternal loss will be those who reject God, and who, as part of that, destroy and support the destruction of His creation.

Barry Morris
01-26-2016, 11:41 AM
PS re "forced birth".

Does that mean that someone gets to live??

Anapeg
01-26-2016, 02:21 PM
If the foetus is sentenced to death anyway, where is the harm in using whatever may be used to save other lives? I am not debating the supposed 'slippery slope' selling the parts might open, no, rather the common sense approach to using what will otherwise be thrown out like so much garbage. It seems to me it might introduce some reason the little individual's conception other than a metaphorical stutter step in the life of the mother.

Westender 3
01-26-2016, 03:28 PM
"forced birth"

You're a good soldier in the Culture of Death

And you're a good little drama queen. How many unwanted kids have you adopted?

RWGR
01-26-2016, 03:42 PM
And you're a good little drama queen. How many unwanted kids have you adopted?

Struck a nerve, eh?

Good.

RWGR
01-26-2016, 03:44 PM
How many unwanted kids have you adopted?

Logical fallacy: if someone has not adopted an unwanted child they cannot have an opinion on abortion.

This isn't amateur hour, buddy. Step up your game.

Barry Morris
01-26-2016, 04:29 PM
And you're a good little drama queen. How many unwanted kids have you adopted?

Couldn't adopt, but fostered through CAS for some years.

My daughter adopted.

You're off the wall, Westender.

Nihilistic Heathen
01-26-2016, 05:59 PM
How does it feel to lose over and over?? You forget that Christians believe that we will win, and the ultimate, eternal loss will be those who reject God, and who, as part of that, destroy and support the destruction of His creation.

You win at all costs as long as you believe? I'm pretty sure you god has something to say about bearing false witness and even siding with and supporting them.

But hey, I'm just an atheist what do I know about god? Other than what I've read in the bible, I have no personal relationship with him.

Barry Morris
01-26-2016, 09:49 PM
You win at all costs as long as you believe? I'm pretty sure you god has something to say about bearing false witness and even siding with and supporting them.

But hey, I'm just an atheist what do I know about god? Other than what I've read in the bible, I have no personal relationship with him.

Let me get this straight.

You say I'm bearing false witness, or these anti-abortion guys are, and you quote the bible???

You reject it completely, so what on earth are you talking about??

Let's talk practically here, from YOUR point of view, as I see it. Don't you believe that we all only get one shot at life? Should you not, therefore, be dead set against abortion? Only one chance, right??

If you had followed my posts in general, you's know there's nothing I hate worse than a Christian twisting the truth to fit his own agenda.

(BTW, don't bother, boys)

Westender 3
01-27-2016, 11:25 AM
Logical fallacy: if someone has not adopted an unwanted child they cannot have an opinion on abortion.

This isn't amateur hour, buddy. Step up your game.

Can it with your faux concern. Your compassion ends after they're born, then your tax dollars are more important.

RWGR
01-27-2016, 11:31 AM
Strawman argument. You lose again.

BFLPE
01-27-2016, 01:00 PM
Another major loss for the dishonest forced birth crowd.Forced birth, what a silly way spin the idea of trying to protect the unborn who can't protect themselves. The unborn who are given no chance to realize what it's like to make a choice.

I see no major losers here. Planned Parenthood got a lot of attention and there is no evidence to show they aren't following the rules. That's not a bad thing for them. The extremists who did the filming will get slapped but they got their 15 minutes and made an impact. Most importantly though a lot of people had their heads pulled from the sand and now understand that killing babies is actually killing babies.

Anapeg
01-27-2016, 05:55 PM
Strawman argument. You lose again.

He has a point. You feel moved to protect them until they are born then they are someone else's problem, not yours. Leave you and your wallet out of it. Why concern yourself with one aspect of their lives only to disown them after birth? You are a forceful voice when they have yet to draw a breath yet don't give a damn in their formative years when Mom or Dad is missing or they need food or clothes.

RWGR
01-28-2016, 09:45 AM
He has a point. You feel moved to protect them until they are born then they are someone else's problem, not yours. Leave you and your wallet out of it. Why concern yourself with one aspect of their lives only to disown them after birth? You are a forceful voice when they have yet to draw a breath yet don't give a damn in their formative years when Mom or Dad is missing or they need food or clothes.

How do you know how I "feel"? How do you know what I do on this end?

You're just trying to assuage the guilt you feel for supporting the killing of the unborn.

Anapeg
01-28-2016, 11:11 AM
How do you know how I "feel"? How do you know what I do on this end?

You're just trying to assuage the guilt you feel for supporting the killing of the unborn.

To the question, you have made your stance rather clear with your postings. To the statement, I do not support abortion, unless the mothers life is in danger or rape.

RWGR
01-28-2016, 12:01 PM
So the fact I've sponsored children through Catholic aid agencies for years proves what?

Anapeg
01-29-2016, 05:13 PM
So the fact I've sponsored children through Catholic aid agencies for years proves what?

Nobel to say the least but I had something more National rather than International in mind. Specifically your views on social welfare and whether or not it is adequate and fair. You tend to take the hands off approach wanting all to be completely self-reliant. Now if I have judged in error you will accept my apology I hope as I thought us to be simpatico on this, to a point.

RWGR
01-30-2016, 11:33 AM
The children I've sponsored have been from Sri Lanka, not sure you can get more international than that.

BFLPE
01-30-2016, 12:30 PM
So the fact I've sponsored children through Catholic aid agencies for years proves what?Many possibilities. Only you know the motivation. You do seem to like bringing it up though.

RWGR
01-31-2016, 11:26 AM
Many possibilities. Only you know the motivation. You do seem to like bringing it up though.

Because I know it's doing way more than any of my critics do,and that makes them uncomfortable.

Sorry that you're uncomfortable in your hypocrisy.

BFLPE
01-31-2016, 12:07 PM
And what hypocrisy would that be?

RWGR
01-31-2016, 03:22 PM
Lamenting how others relate to society's less-fortunate when you probably don't do a whole hell of a lot yourself

BFLPE
01-31-2016, 03:35 PM
So you make positive statements based on 'I know' which now means 'probably'. And you say I lamented how you relate to society's less-fortunate yet I don't recall that happening.

It's great you help those less fortunate.

Still can't figure why you brought up your international support efforts when it was suggested you don't support those in your own Country who are less fortunate though. Deflection perhaps, maybe poor reading comprehension. Who knows.

RWGR
01-31-2016, 04:29 PM
I understand you're envious of me. You should be.

Don't sweat it.

BFLPE
01-31-2016, 11:34 PM
I think your dictionary is broken.