Is the entire female population exempt from the same knowledge?Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
BTW-You really should read the article.
Printable View
Is the entire female population exempt from the same knowledge?Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
BTW-You really should read the article.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You really want to know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
WARNING! Do NOT click on the following link if you're squeamish.
Partial Birth Abortion, WARNING, graphic content!
Let's hear you justify this Busyman.
Yes, let's. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ava Estelle
Actually, that's not fair, Ava.
It's exactly the type of thing that can change someone's mind, and is, as such, out-of-bounds.
why?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Because it is effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Visit Planned Parenthood, ask to see "the video about partial-birth abortion", and see what type of reaction you get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Again I ask why you say it is out of bounds. Just "because it is effective" is not a reason. It appears you are trying to make statements on behalf of the "opposition" making it seem that they want as many people to have abortions as possible and would make them comulsory given the chance. I could just as easily make the case that for the familiy research council any scientific evidence that counters their satements is out of bounds and not open to discussion.
scientific medical facts are not out of bounds, for either side......... mistruths are....on both sides.
I'm sure there is some nut out there that wants compulsory abortions, and I'm sure some nut will try to pin that person to "liberals". However even planned parenthood is not encouraging women to have abortions, no matter how anyone tries to frame it that just by performing them they are. They are simply allowing people to make the choice themself. And that's how it should be.
Humorous that you fail to recognize rhetoric when you are not the one employing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I read a bit more, recently, about the effort (denounced by Planned Parenthood, BTW) to enlist pregnant females in a plan whereby an ultrasound picture would be taken and shown to the mother-to-be.
Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate substantial numbers of these women change their minds about having an abortion on-the-spot.
Along those same lines, I guess PP assumes (rightfully) that minds might be changed, too, by showing graphic evidence of partial-birth-abortion, and that's bad for business.
What other reason could they have for obscuring and denouncing such techniques as "biased"?
Do you feel such efforts are out-of-line?
And if such a campaign were done....say in the media.... and if said campaign contained facts and only facts and not just rhetoric then no problem.... Making such a campaign compulsory and forcing clinics to show graphic images.... problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Do you think that these groups that are trying to get the cervical cancer vaccine banned "because it might encourage sexual activity" should be forced to show pictures of dead cancer victims?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Actually, wouldn't it be more effective and on-point if the people in question were themselves forced to view these pictures you speak of? :huh: