Article: The Many Manipulations of the Planned Parenthood AttackVideos:
An OB/GYN explains how medically incorrect language is used to distort the facts

Article in regular print; my fisking is in bold.

The anti-choice [pro-abortion groups want to be called "pro-choice" but refuse to use the "pro-life" for their opponents] organization Center for Medical Progress—which, in 2013, claimed tax-exempt status as a biomedical charity—have recently released two “undercover” [scare quotes] videos of Planned Parenthood officials discussing post-procedure tissue [biologically, cells make up tissues, tissues working together make organs, and organs working together make up organ systems. A late term abortion, the subject of the 1st video involved selling the developed organs for an aborted child.] donation [sale, not donation]. The group claims the videos demonstrate that Planned Parenthood profits from fetal tissue donation (which would be illegal) and that they are “haggling” [scare quotes and the video shows haggling] over the price of “baby parts.” [more scare quotes; livers and hearts can be termed parts.]

As an OB/GYN [appeal to authority logical fallacy], I can tell you that neither of these claims are true. [The transcript from the 2nd video - link - shows them haggling over the price. The other claim, that they "profit" is harder to determine, partly because of the many definitions of the word profit. The PP doctor admits receiving money for fetal tissue; isn't that profit?]

These are not "baby parts." [scare quotes] Whether a woman has a miscarriage or an abortion, the tissue specimen is called "products of conception." [As the commericial used to say, "Parts is parts."] In utero, i.e. during pregnancy, we use the term "embryo" from fertilization to 10 weeks gestation and "fetus" ["from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful;" it was used in Latin for newborns, but was not the normal word, "infans".] from 10 weeks to birth. The term baby is medically [narrow definition, designed to hide a difference that could be counted in inches or minutes] incorrect as it doesn’t apply until birth. Note: are medical terms the only ones that can be used?] Calling the tissue “baby parts” is a calculated attempt to anthropomorphize [since this is a human fetus, with all the genes of chromosomes of a human, and in the 2nd and third trimesters is recognizably human. They are "anthropomorphizing" a human. Not very hard to do.] an embryo or fetus. It is a false image—a 10-12 week fetus looks nothing like a term baby—and is medically incorrect. [Tecnically true for the 2nd video, but in the first video, the PP doctor and the actors were discusses 3 trimester fetuses (to use their word) which does have recognizable, functioning organs. Third trimester infants are viable outside the womb; I had a friend, now in her 60's, that was one of the first early trimester babies to survive.]

I am cutting this off here. It runs on for 3 paragraphs. My point is made.

The thesis of this argument is in the title: An OB/GYN explains how medically incorrect language is used to distort the facts. 

Simply, what does the argument that medical terminology really mean? It is a way of hiding what is going on behind a bunch of Latin derived euphemisms: fetus, embryo, products of conception (most of us who have had children refer to them as children, not "products of conception"), post-procedure tissue and the rest.

The title of the article uses the word manipulative and, boy, is this article manipulative. 

ABC News: GOV. JERRY BROWN BLASTS CLIMATE-CHANGE NAYSAYERS AT VATICAN SYMPOSIUM

Huffington Post: Jerry Brown Takes On Climate Change-Denying 'Troglodytes'

Breitbart.com: GOV. JERRY BROWN SLAMS CLIMATE-CHANGE SKEPTICS AS ‘TROGLODYTES’ AT VATICAN CONFERENCE

Governor Jerry Brown spend 3 years studying for the priesthood before completing a bachelors of arts in classics. He then earned a law degree from Yale University. He has a fine mind, trained to read, interpret, and think. He is not a scientist, however, and is not trained in dealing with how science operates. His opinions about global warming are just that, opinions. And these opinions are informed by the deep, leftist bubble he has lived in all his life.

"Right in the middle of this problem, we have fierce opposition and blind inertia and that opposition is well financed. Hundreds of millions of dollars going into propaganda, in falsifying the scientific record, bamboozling people of every country, television stations, political parties, think tanks, PHDs, university personnel," Brown said.

Biblically, even legally, this is slander. Oddly enough, I agree with it, because this is true of the climate-acedemic-media complex that operates in the US that promotes global warming. The only people "falsifying the scientific record" are the global warming activists, including NOAA and NASA's Goddard Climate Center.

[Rome’s Mayor Ignazio] Marino, a former surgeon, underscored the problem of organ trafficking, saying the phenomenon was on the increase, with tens of thousands of operations carried out each year around the world to extract organs—particularly kidneys—for sale to rich patients. Marino’s statement came just after it was revealed in the United States that the nation’s largest abortion provider Planned Parenthood has been harvesting organs from aborted babies and offering them for sale.

The Catholic Church has long had deeply thought out, theological positions against abortion, slavery, prostitution, homosexuality and organ theft. What are Gov Brown's positions with regard to these issues?

1. Brown’s newfound love for Saint Paul seems to gloss over the apostle’s strong words condemning homosexual practice, which would clash with the governor’s favorable position on same-sex marriage. 

2. A former Jesuit seminarian studying for the priesthood, Brown has evolved considerably since his seminary days, and his support of abortion in opposition to the Catholic Church’s defense of unborn children has earned him the plaudits of Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice groups.

Why have such a person, who is in opposition to important parts of Catholic theology, show-cased at a meeting in the Vatican?

Gov. Brown: troglodytes, deniers, bamboozled, un-Christian, greedy swindlers.

"Climate change deniers" is a straw dog logical fallacy. NO ONE denies that the climate changes. Gov Brown is calling catastrophic anthropogenic global warming "climate change" and then saying people are denying that it is happening.

Name calling is a logical fallacy called the ad hominen logical fallacy.

If it is necessary to use these fallacies, it is evidence that you know your arguement is actually very weak, and the only thing you can do is to fake it.

Governor Brown: "God is not mocked for whatsoever a man soweth that he shall also reap and what Saint Paul said in reference to God, we can also say about God's creation. We have heard what we are doing to that creation. What a trillion tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses will do," Brown said.

So, how well does Gov Brown's fine mind interpret the Bible?

The Bible: Galatians 6:6-10 (NASB)6 The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him. 7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. 10 So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.

The context of Paul's admonition is to be generous to those in the church who teach and lead. Gov. Brown is advocating sowing to the flesh (concern about the things of this world).

If he is going to sow slander, that is what he will reap. If he sows hate, that is what he will reap. If he calls his opponents "un-Christian," and judges and condemns them, that is what he will reap. If he sows the murder of innocents, then that is what he will reap.

And may God have mercy on his soul.

Article: Climate denial is immoral, says head of US Episcopal church

The highest ranking woman in the Anglican communion has said climate denial is a “blind” and immoral position which rejects God’s gift of knowledge.

"Immoral." I don't think that word means what you think it means.

From the Wikipedia article on Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of the US Episcopal church:

She caused schism in the church:

Jefferts Schori's tenure has been highly controversial and marked by nearly unprecedented schism, with four dioceses having broken off to become part of the Anglican Church in North America...

She is vindictive:

At her direction the national church has initiated lawsuits against departing dioceses and parishes, with some $22 million spent thus far. She also established a policy that church properties were not to be sold to departing congregations.

She is a supporter of sexual immorality and of government intrusion into church life:

Jefferts Schori is a supporter of same-sex relationships and of the blessing of same-sex unions and civil marriages.

She is a supporter of killing the pre-born:

Like her predecessor, she is a supporter of abortion rights, stating that "We say it is a moral tragedy but that it should not be the government's role to deny its availability." She also supported the HHS mandate on birth control.

Feel-good article of the day

Article: Five Ways Liberals Ignore Science

Five major ways, and a host of minor ways, the left ignores science. And pushes an agenda behind that ignore-ance.

Babies in womb start learning earlier than thought

Article: Evidence suggests babies in womb start learning earlier than thought: study

Babies in the womb show evidence of learning by their 34th week, three weeks earlier than previously thought, new research has found.

Since the third trimester is from the 28th week to 42 weeks, this is well back into the middle of the third trimester.

Krueger had the women repeat three times out loud a set 15-second nursery rhyme, and do it twice a day for six weeks. The selected rhyme was previously unknown to the mothers.

The fetuses’ heart rates were monitored at 32, 33 and 34 weeks as they listened to a recording of a female stranger recite the rhyme.

By the 34th week, Krueger said, the heart rates of the tested fetuses showed an overall slight decline while listening to the recording, compared with a control group of fetuses whose heart rates slightly accelerated while listening to a recording of a new nursery rhyme.

Krueger said a decelerating heartbeat has long been associated with a fetus recognizing something familiar, compared with an accelerated heartbeat response to a novel sound or experience.

"We cautiously concluded, because it was not statistically significant, that learning emerged by 34 weeks gestational age," she said.

So, babies can learn at this point. They also can recognize novel sounds as well.

Previous research has already shown that babies recognize their mother's voices, but I do not remember when in pregnancy that starts. Obviously at least by the third semester.

One implication has to do with abortion. First, the article has "baby" in both the title and five times in the article; fetus was also used 5 times.

Second, what constitutes being human?

We already know that babies born in the 3rd trimester are viable, and we have known that for decades. Once born, no one has a problem saying that the baby is human and deserve protection and rights. Most people who call themselves pro-life have no problem with saying that the fertilized egg is alive, human in some way, and deserves to be accorded some protection.

Learning is one of the things that make us human.