As only one safely in existence can say.
As only one safely in existence can say.
The non-existent can't argue my point. So mine is more valid.
If you operate under the premise that all life is sacred, I could see where you're coming from. I personally feel reality paints a far more realistic picture and that ideology unrealistic.
Seems a DA is a Director for the local PP. Maybe, just maybe, they should have recused themselves?
http://www.frankjsalvato.com/headli...deos-indicted-despite-prosecutors-affiliation
http://www.frankjsalvato.com/headli...deos-indicted-despite-prosecutors-affiliation
The non-existent can't argue my point. So mine is more valid.
If you operate under the premise that all life is sacred, I could see where you're coming from. I personally feel reality paints a far more realistic picture and that ideology unrealistic.
"Reality" would suggest that your own existence could be substantially put in peril if someone else decides it isn't sufficiently what? purposeful? productive? Nothing is pure and no ideal every really gets achieved consistently but those beliefs/belief systems that allow for easy wanton destruction of others (even voiceless but very alive human beings in the womb) are very dangerous to all including those that promulgate them.
BFD ... so what one of the prosecutors on the DA's staff is connected to PP .. what counts is the grand jury that spent a few months digging through the evidence saw fit to issue indictments for criminal charges where they thought an actual crime(s) was committed.
Actually, I think the grand juries are presented evidence specifically chosen by the prosecutors without there being any other evidence, say from the defendants' attorneys, that is allowed to be presented to the grand jury. Thus, it isn't hard for a Texas prosecutor to, as they say, "indict an ham sandwich." Wasn't it Tom DeLay that was indicted by a grand jury? Didn't he get off because the evidence wasn't sufficient for a conviction? I don't remember for sure on his outcome. At any rate, it is a lot harder to get a conviction than it is to get an indictment.
So, if one of the prosecutors is connected to Planned Parenthood, they would very much be able to skew the evidence shown to the grand jury. Trust me, grand juries aren't always the brightest bulbs in the pack. Same with juries...I had a co-worker that was drawn to be a juror on a drug case. She astounded me when she told me that the rest of the jury had no idea that possession of drugs with the intent to sell was a more serious crime than simple possession.
Personally, I'll just wait to see what the legal system ends up doing in this case.
Now, as to the moral issue, it is disgusting to see that someone wants to prosecute someone faking an ID, but not for cutting up babies that just don't happen to be born yet.
As for Planned Parenthood selling or not selling tissue "for a profit," I have one question. If Planned Parenthood is being recompensed for doing the abortion itself, why couldn't it be said that they were actually "profiting" on the tissue instead of simply being "compensated" for the process?
As for not using tax dollars for doing abortions, I think I want to call "bull-chips." If they are getting tax money (which they are) aren't they just using those funds for "running the organization" and allowing other money obtained to do the abortion. Funds in such a case are fungible.
As for Planned Parenthood selling or not selling tissue "for a profit," I have one question. If Planned Parenthood is being recompensed for doing the abortion itself, why couldn't it be said that they were actually "profiting" on the tissue instead of simply being "compensated" for the process?
As for not using tax dollars for doing abortions, I think I want to call "bull-chips." If they are getting tax money (which they are) aren't they just using those funds for "running the organization" and allowing other money obtained to do the abortion. Funds in such a case are fungible.
You're begging the question. A not-insignificant portion of the pro-choice crowd argue that an embryo or fetus isn't yet human. It will become one, but has not yet achieved personhood status, according to their thinking.
I'm not weighing in on that belief, but if you're to have a meaningful discussion, you have to understand you counterpart's position.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Man shot 15 times with .45, returns fire ... Maybe shot placement?? 🤷- Latest: Glock 'em down
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
