• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Weighing In on Planned Parenthood Videos

Yes, I do.
And I know you're wrong.

and I know you think I'm wrong as well.

So, there's not much more to say, is there?

I'm of course not wrong. Just as I am not responsible for your feelings I am not responsible for your actions.
 
It's a very good thing that libertarian 'thought' has never been found to be useful in the structure of civilisation.
 
It's a very good thing that libertarian 'thought' has never been found to be useful in the structure of civilisation.

Except of course it was. :lol: It's based on classical liberalism, which was in fact critical to what would become the United States.
 
I'm of course not wrong. Just as I am not responsible for your feelings I am not responsible for your actions.

Are you responsible for running over people in a crowded theatre to escape a fire? Or is it just 'their problem' for being organized enough to be leaving in an orderly manner?
 
Are you responsible for running over people in a crowded theatre to escape a fire? Or is it just 'their problem' for being organized enough to be leaving in an orderly manner?

:lol: I believe I already covered that. The answer is yes.
 
:lol: I believe I already covered that. The answer is yes.

So then the people panicking ARE culpable under the 1A.

Thanks.
 
It will be interesting to find out who paid for Mr Daleiden's little cinema project

Justice Kennedy's ruling is sound. The group in question was essentially attempting to undercut the legal discovery process. Discovery is a core component of the nation's judicial process and is essential to helping sustain rule of law.
 
What is the nature of the deceptive editing?

Did the folks actually not say what they appear to be saying?

You have a link that shows the edited version compared to the unedited version and demonstrates the way(s) in which the words were twisted, taken out of context or whatever?

The clips I watched seemed like complete sentences and no coersion or tampering in the body of the clip.

I'm not a video pathologist, but to the layman...

All I'm asking for is the link and a little guidance to exact example that you are actually pointing to as the deceptive editing.
Here's some general fact checking:

Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video

Since you admit you're lacking in professional level video pathology skills, here's a detailed high-level professional forensic analysis to set you in the right direction (in .pdf):

http://ppfa.pr-optout.com/ViewAttachment.aspx?EID=mr9WXYw4u2IxYnni1dBRVk3HDyuhhkPMnFMCvK5fVC8%3d

Also, here's CNN's investigatory story finding the videographer had edited-in images of a non-aborted stillborn to portray a PP abortion that never occurred, with his deception coming to light when the original birthmother come forward to challenge the video [Even Carly Fiorina was tripped-up when she used another segment of the video while campaigning, and it came to light that segment also had images altered to portray another PP abortion that never occurred]:

The real story behind those Planned Parenthood videos - CNNPolitics.com

The videographer also portrays the $30-100 legally specified harvesting reimbursement costs as "selling body parts for profit", which is again false & deceptive.

So there's a myriad of deception & misrepresentation going on here, some of which may be above your (or my) technical ability to discern, and it seems to be manifest in the group hiding from the courts, rather than standing-up for their work.
 
Here's some general fact checking:

Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video

Since you admit you're lacking in professional level video pathology skills, here's a detailed high-level professional forensic analysis to set you in the right direction (in .pdf):

http://ppfa.pr-optout.com/ViewAttachment.aspx?EID=mr9WXYw4u2IxYnni1dBRVk3HDyuhhkPMnFMCvK5fVC8%3d

Also, here's CNN's investigatory story finding the videographer had edited-in images of a non-aborted stillborn to portray a PP abortion that never occurred, with his deception coming to light when the original birthmother come forward to challenge the video [Even Carly Fiorina was tripped-up when she used another segment of the video while campaigning, and it came to light that segment also had images altered to portray another PP abortion that never occurred]:

The real story behind those Planned Parenthood videos - CNNPolitics.com

The videographer also portrays the $30-100 legally specified harvesting reimbursement costs as "selling body parts for profit", which is again false & deceptive.

So there's a myriad of deception & misrepresentation going on here, some of which may be above your (or my) technical ability to discern, and it seems to be manifest in the group hiding from the courts, rather than standing-up for their work.

It seems, then that the actual practice of harvesting and engaging in the commerce to distribute the body parts of aborted fetuses, is not challenged.

It is only the exact presentation of the videos, the implied connection between a specific comment and a specific video image.

The outrage was, I thought, that the commerce was ongoing. I never saw the video representations of the aborted "products". I only heard that body parts were being traded and that there was a business around this.

You seem to be saying that the deceptive editing was done to perhaps change a particular nuance or to sensationalize the message. I was asking if the actual message was changed. The kind of statement that I found disturbing was that the procedure was changed to make the harvested tissue more valuable to the end users. This struck me, and apparently many others, as being just a tad grisly.

One of your links is from a Liberal think tank, the second says that editing occurred, but does not cite particular changes in statements. The CNN link does nothing to say that the actual statements were changed, only that the implied connection between statements and videos was misleading. I was wondering if statements like, "We would NEVER do that" were edited to say, "We would do that".

As I understand it, the actual statements publicized that caused outrage were the actual statements made by the officials on the videos. Do you have a link that shows the publicized statement were not the actual statements?

This is the kind of statement that raised my eye brows.

Closing the Planned Parenthood Loophole - WSJ
<snip>
Planned Parenthood insists that it didn’t violate the statute. But the videos suggest that some abortion clinics flout the spirit if not the letter of that law. Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, is shown explaining that many providers use ultrasound images to guide the procedure so as to obtain intact tissue. “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part,” she says.

A congressional inquiry reached the same conclusion 15 years ago, as did an investigation that same year by ABC’s “20/20.” Yet the law wasn’t revised after these episodes.
<snip>

Planned Parenthood has stopped accepting any money whatever for the discarded fetal tissue. As I understand it, they are still accepting donations from those who feel their work is valuable.

Interestingly, 20/20 did a show on this in 2000. Just as interesting, it did not really pursue this today.

I can't tell if this YouTube video was altered from the original broadcast on ABC.

Simply editing is done all the time. Complaints from those who appear in unflattering segments often contain charges of alterations. Did the actual message change due to the editing?

It doesn't seem to have changed much. It doesn't seem to have changed much from 15 years ago, either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKTBaabFVbQ
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom