Bill O'Reilly Blasts Planned Parenthood

Originally posted by Robtard
So your argument is 'O'Reilly didn't lie, he's just ignorant'? Okay then.

It's also more than just an unproven allegation, there was a hearing, PP is still up and receiving funding. Seems to me if the hearing could have proved something negative, they would have.

The problem with our discussions is that we seem to have this weird disconnect about how you understand my posts. You DO underatand that my statement was phrased in the form of a question correct? Best to take it down a notch, man. That way we can have a nice discussion instead of a confrontational one.

And I'm not here to defend O'Reilly either. Don't know enough him nor watch his show. He might have lied or might not have, I don't know. My comment was about the PP video in general.

I was asking if there was proof that the PP video was an intended lie. Like an admission of lying or a timestamp of segments that were mixed together in such a way that what they said would be completely opposite of what they meant.

A lie, by definition, is an intention to decieve (unless you guys are using the "founded on a wrong premise" definition?). Them not being found of wrongdoings in a hearing only means that there wasn't enough proof to prove that it did. Means that they are indeed innocent, but it does not prove that the video itself was a lie. Again, I am only speaking about the PP video. And again, this is more of a request for evidence to prove an assertion and not an assertion of their guilt/innocence at all.

Not saying the allegation is true. Just that the allegation of calling the PP video "a lie" might also not be accurate (unless there's some proof of course, is there?).

Originally posted by Nibedicus
The problem with our discussions is that we seem to have this weird disconnect about how you understand my posts. You DO underatand that my statement was phrased in the form of a question correct? Best to take it down a notch, man. That way we can have a nice discussion instead of a confrontational one.

And I'm not here to defend O'Reilly either. Don't know enough him nor watch his show. He might have lied or might not have, I don't know. My comment was about the PP video in general.

I was asking if there was proof that the PP video was an intended lie. Like an admission of lying or a timestamp of segments that were mixed together in such a way that what they said would be completely opposite of what they meant.

A lie, by definition, is an intention to decieve (unless you guys are using the "founded on a wrong premise" definition?). Them not being found of wrongdoings in a hearing only means that there wasn't enough proof to prove that it did. Means that they are indeed innocent, but it does not prove that the video itself was a lie. Again, I am only speaking about the PP video. And again, this is more of a request for evidence to prove an assertion and not an assertion of their guilt/innocence at all.

Not saying the allegation is true. Just that the allegation of calling the PP video "a lie" might also not be accurate (unless there's some proof of course, is there?).

Originally posted by Nibedicus
The problem with our discussions is that we seem to have this weird disconnect about how you understand my posts. You DO underatand that my statement was phrased in the form of a question correct? Best to take it down a notch, man. That way we can have a nice discussion instead of a confrontational one.

And I'm not here to defend O'Reilly either. Don't know enough him nor watch his show. He might have lied or might not have, I don't know. My comment was about the PP video in general.

I was asking if there was proof that the PP video was an intended lie. Like an admission of lying or a timestamp of segments that were mixed together in such a way that what they said would be completely opposite of what they meant.

A lie, by definition, is an intention to decieve (unless you guys are using the "founded on a wrong premise" definition?). Them not being found of wrongdoings in a hearing only means that there wasn't enough proof to prove that it did. Means that they are indeed innocent, but it does not prove that the video itself was a lie. Again, I am only speaking about the PP video. And again, this is more of a request for evidence to prove an assertion and not an assertion of their guilt/innocence at all.

Not saying the allegation is true. Just that the allegation of calling the PP video "a lie" might also not be accurate (unless there's some proof of course, is there?).

In regards to the PP videos, intentionally editing a video as to force a different narrative implies deceit to me. eg Using stock footage of a fetus to then force some narrative of a 'fetus being harvested for parts' is deceitful. eg Editing and/or cutting wording as to imply a different meaning implies deceit.

Look at this way, if the videos actually said and did what was claimed by anti-abortion group, why edit at all, why not initially open up with the source material as is, letting the viewer judge for themselves.

ps Don't mind him, he follows me around and cheerleads anyone who he thinks I'm having a confrontation with. He thinks he's trolling, I personally find it flattering to be followed around all over KMC

Originally posted by Robtard
"Planned Parenthood is in the baby body parts business and deserves much of the harsh criticism directed to it," the Fox News host said. -endsnip

Since when is perpetuating a lie being a good journalist. The CEO of PP went before a hearing and nothing came of it. What else do you need?

Considering who is in charge of the DOJ right now....No. Not surprising to see that nothing came of it.

But then PP is just another façade of a "Private Organization" that is really just a front for the Dems to launder money thru for their own benefits.

Good post, Fly 👆

Originally posted by Robtard
There was no intention of malice in my post, my bad if it came off that way. I also phrased it as a question leaving you open to further explain your position.

In regards to the PP videos, intentionally editing a video as to force a different narrative implies deceit to me. eg Using stock footage of a fetus to then force some narrative of a 'fetus being harvested for parts' is deceitful. eg Editing and/or cutting wording as to imply a different meaning implies decit.

Look at this way, if the videos actually said and did what was claimed by anti-abortion group, why edit at all, why not initially open up with the source material as is, letting the viewer judge for themselves.

All good, man. I'm here for an informational, not a argumentative discussion. So most of what I'll be saying/asking in this thread will be more of an inquiry than an assertion. As I will admit I know little about the issue beyond what I've read in these forums. I will, however, also admit that I disagree with a lot of what PP lobbies for (not its purpose, but more of its general future goals, but let's not discuss that here).

Anyway, how was the video edited in a way for force a false narrative? I watched the video myself and all it showed were discussions on costs as well as a scene where they showed harvestable fetal tissue? What part did the smart editing come in? I will admit it broke my heart to watch (devout dad here) but I didn't see any forced narrative other than what was shown or any kind of deceptive editing where words were intentionally twisted.

From what I hear, it was a long video. As with any group with an agenda (and they do, of course) they would naturally edit to the parts that best represent their assertions.

Originally posted by Robtard
Good post, Fly 👆

Threaten to cut PP's funding from the Gubmint and boy watch the baby body parts fly.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
All good, man. I'm here for an informational, not a argumentative discussion. So most of what I'll be saying/asking in this thread will be more of an inquiry than an assertion. As I will admit I know little about the issue beyond what I've read in these forums. I will, however, also admit that I disagree with a lot of what PP lobbies for (not its purpose, but more of its general future goals, but let's not discuss that here).

Anyway, how was the video edited in a way for force a false narrative? I watched the video myself and all it showed were discussions on costs as well as a scene where they showed harvestable fetal tissue? What part did the smart editing come in? I will admit it broke my heart to watch (devout dad here) but I didn't see any forced narrative other than what was shown or any kind of deceptive editing where words were intentionally twisted.

From what I hear, it was a long video. As with any group with an agenda (and they do, of course) they would naturally edit to the parts that best represent their assertions.

The second vid which had the stock footage of the fetus forced a narrative that said fetus was being harvested for parts (just out of sight of the camera). It's the video that Fiorina then publicly decried, but it blew up in her face as what she claimed she saw, wasn't actually on the footage, as the camera panned up when the supposed 'harvesting of a live fetus, heat beating' happened.

Crafty editing can force a narrative, even one completely different if done properly enough. I'm sure you seen it done for humor purposes before on youtube and the like.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Never really followed the whole PP controversy really well as I was busy with RL stuff at the time. Are you saying that it was never a proven lie (as some people here seem to strongly imply), just simply unproven?

So, from what I'm hearing, the money they collected were "handling fees" for the tissue collected?

Originally posted by Robtard
I'd have to go back in check in the original thread, but the conversation (first vid) was the PP person strictly talking about storage and logistics fees for donated tissue (which is then donated to other institutes/companies for research), as it's illegal to actually sell said donated tissue. There was no talk of selling the tissue or parts.

The second vid which had the stock footage of the fetus forced a narrative that said fetus was being harvested for parts (just out of sight of the camera). It's the video that Fiorina then publicly decried, but it blew up in her face as what she claimed she saw, wasn't actually on the footage, as the camera panned up when the supposed 'harvesting of a live fetus, heat beating' happened.

Crafty editing can force a narrative, even one completely different if done properly enough. I'm sure you seen it done for humor purposes before on youtube and the like.

Trying to watch the vid again as well. Might want to excuse me a bit and give me a bit of time, I've always found this thing hard to watch.

Edit. You know what? This stuff is just a little too much for me at this time (I've been away from my wife and daughter due to work the last few months and it hasn't been easy). I think I'll just go back to less upsetting stuff. Peace.

Good! PP needs to close up shop. It's a stain on the morality of this country.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Good! PP needs to close up shop. It's a stain on the morality of this country.

Uh, it provides a ton of other health services, often the only available source for many women, and it's education and birth control parts help lower the number of abortions.

One of the primary reasons abortion is among them is because beforehand, there was an epidemic of women dying of self-performed abortions.

Or to put it another way, not providing abortion was such a huge strain on the morality of the country it got legalized. Closing planned parenthood doesn't alleviate the need, they perform their role well and many others besides, and if they closed, you'd absolutely need another in their place or the death toll goes up again.

Originally posted by Q99
Uh, it provides a ton of other health services, often the only available source for many women, and it's education and birth control parts help lower the number of abortions.

One of the primary reasons abortion is among them is because beforehand, there was an epidemic of women dying of self-performed abortions.

Or to put it another way, not providing abortion was such a huge strain on the morality of the country it got legalized. Closing planned parenthood doesn't alleviate the need, they perform their role well and many others besides, and if they closed, you'd absolutely need another in their place or the death toll goes up again.

I understand they provide other services, but the fact that abortion is one of these services is enough for me to want them shut down. You can't justify the murder of unborn children, regardless of other services offered. Also, if a female dies trying to abort the pregnancy herself, she kind of deserves it. It is so much better to have a child, then place it up for adoption.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I understand they provide other services, but the fact that abortion is one of these services is enough for me to want them shut down. You can't justify the murder of unborn children, regardless of other services offered.

Sure you can, in a number of ways. For one, most abortions are done sooo early term- when a lot die anyway, and when the fetus is nothing like a baby. Most of the exceptions are for health issues, 'someone's going to die anyway, likely both,' type things. For another, in no other circumstance is someone *required* to sacrifice their health, even risk death, for someone else, and yes, health effects of pregnancy are guaranteed, with very serious ones still common enough to worry about. Body autonomy is normally considered a very big deal in most circumstances, you can't require someone to donate an organ or similar.

But, perhaps most critically, it reduces the number of abortions. So which are are you more opposed to- someone doing abortions, or the actual number of abortions?

Isn't having the number of abortions lower more important to fighting abortions? Are anti-abortion principles so important that they're even worth causing noticeably more abortions? Is it really anti-abortion if it raises the number of abortions?

If there was somehow someone who wanted to cause more abortion, the first thing they'd do is go after Planned Parenthood (the second would be encourage abstinence only sex ed).

Also, if a female dies trying to abort the pregnancy herself, she kind of deserves it.

That's cold and callous and part of the moral stain I'm talking about.

That's no longer about trying to prevent things, that's being pro-punishing people who do something you don't want. It's causing death out of cruelty.

It is so much better to have a child, then place it up for adoption.

Our adoption agencies and foster system are badly overstretched as it is.

If there was massively more funding and effort put into them, then I'm sure you'd see abortions drop. No-one seems interested in doing that.

Pro-life degenerates. Disgusting, filthy self-righteous liars. Kill them all.

Megan Kelly had Carly Fiorina on her show tonight. She was asking her what her thoughts were on some left-wing idiots accusing her of being a "psychopath" for so-called "inciting the attack on PP" by talking about so-called "fake PP videos". Was quite pleased with her response and how she laughed when Megan informed her many on the left claimed the videos were altered. The show repeats again tonight in about an hour for anybody who wants to see how well Fiorina handled all of the liberal bashing.

O'Reilly had a good show tonight too. The re-run is running right now.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Man Bill really pisses people off, looks like he is doing his job.

Interestingly though he is the #1 show on cable on for 10 years in a row.

Somebody likes him. I am sure he doesn't really care about the liberal haters on KMC.

In fact he has a part in his show called pithy comments where he airs all the hate emails. Pretty funny..

Actually, it's been 15 straight years TI from what I've heard. Unfortunately, I've only discovered it recently but I've really enjoyed it so far. O'Reilly is awesome. Yeah, I agree that the end of the show where he addresses e-mails is funny.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Good! PP needs to close up shop. It's a stain on the morality of this country.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I understand they provide other services, but the fact that abortion is one of these services is enough for me to want them shut down. You can't justify the murder of unborn children, regardless of other services offered. Also, if a female dies trying to abort the pregnancy herself, she kind of deserves it. It is so much better to have a child, then place it up for adoption.

👆 QFT.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I understand they provide other services, but the fact that abortion is one of these services is enough for me to want them shut down. You can't justify the murder of unborn children, regardless of other services offered. Also, if a female dies trying to abort the pregnancy herself, she kind of deserves it. It is so much better to have a child, then place it up for adoption.

The problem is that it's your opinion that it's the murder of unborn children. It's not objectively a fact under many definitions, so it isn't really that cut and dry, tbh.

also, wtf @ her deserving it.

Obviously murder is a little too strong of a word for what they do but they most certainly deny them a natural right to live which is immoral, to say the least. It's not right that an innocent unborn baby should have to pay because his or her parents couldn't practice safe sex or, *gasp* God forbid, actually abstain all together. If u can't deal with the repercussions of having a child then perhaps you shouldn't be taking a risk of whatever birth control you're using of failing on you. Just to be clear, I'm ok with abortions if they happen very soon after impregnation takes place. If they wait too long (like when the fetus has a heart) then I don't think "murder" is any longer an inappropriate term to use for it.