Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Planned ParenthoodFollow

#1 Jul 30 2015 at 10:18 AM Rating: Default
So yeah Planned Parenthood is dissecting baby parts for sell.

Now a liberal cali judge is trying to block the release of any more of these videos showing the Planned Parenthood officials selling baby parts.

#2 Jul 30 2015 at 10:23 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Did PP sell your parts? Is that why you're so bitter?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Jul 30 2015 at 10:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yea, hits me?

When this story (such as it is) first broke, it was all "Planned Parenthood is making money selling baby parts!!!" Then it was "Planned Parenthood is getting $30-$100 for baby parts".

Fifty bucks? Really? I mean, if Planned Parenthood says that fifty bucks is to cover the costs of preserving the parts and all that then... yeah, probably. No one is buying Rolls Royces and rolling in ermine capes by "selling" fetus bits for fifty bucks to medical research facilities.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Jul 30 2015 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
It's more of a volume deal. At $100 a part x 500 abortions per day you're raking in 50k a day, all cash money.
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#5 Jul 30 2015 at 10:59 AM Rating: Default
lolgaxe wrote:
Did PP sell your parts? Is that why you're so bitter?


Unlike you I don't like to joke about government funding organizations slicing up babies for the highest bidder. I get that if you take this seriously you might have to re-evaluate your entire political ideology but change is possible.
#6 Jul 30 2015 at 11:01 AM Rating: Default
Jophiel wrote:
Yea, hits me?

When this story (such as it is) first broke, it was all "Planned Parenthood is making money selling baby parts!!!" Then it was "Planned Parenthood is getting $30-$100 for baby parts".

Fifty bucks? Really? I mean, if Planned Parenthood says that fifty bucks is to cover the costs of preserving the parts and all that then... yeah, probably. No one is buying Rolls Royces and rolling in ermine capes by "selling" fetus bits for fifty bucks to medical research facilities.


Apparently you didn't watch the undercover interviews. Planned parenthood officials talking about buying Lamborghini's.

Do you have anything to say about the actual video's? I thought not.
#7 Jul 30 2015 at 11:03 AM Rating: Default
Amazing how you can joke about harvesting baby parts on this site but don't dare use the N word.
#8 Jul 30 2015 at 11:04 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Quote:
I thought not.
Literally no surprise.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#9 Jul 30 2015 at 11:09 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
That was amusing for all of forty minutes.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#10 Jul 30 2015 at 11:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
It's more of a volume deal. At $100 a part x 500 abortions per day you're raking in 50k a day, all cash money.

I realize that you're being facetious but I'm sure there's an upper limit on how many fetal spleens the medical research community needs on any given day. Plus no one seems to dispute that these are voluntary donations on the mothers' part so not every abortion would yield usable tissue (early vs mid/late term) and not every abortion that potentially could yield usable tissue would be greenlighted to do so. Interestingly, the real money seems to come from the middle-man brokers who get the tissue from Planned Parenthood (or other medical facilities via stillbirths and miscarriages) at cost to cover expenses and then sell it for major bucks to the facilities who actually use it for science.

Honestly, the whole thing seems very similar to the embryonic stem cell debate. You're using embryos that are otherwise subject to incineration. Likewise, you're using fetal tissue that would otherwise be incinerated. PP obviously ain't realistically making cash monies off this and the "scandal" relies purely on the emotional reaction of "selling baby parts" by collecting fees to cover costs.

Edited, Jul 30th 2015 12:10pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Jul 30 2015 at 11:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
yeahitsme wrote:
Planned parenthood officials talking about buying Lamborghini's.

Rather than try to explain concepts like "context" or "sarcasm" to you, how about this: with your next sock account show me a PP official actually driving a Lamborghini. Bonus points if you can directly connect its purchase to the "sale" of fetal tissue.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Jul 30 2015 at 11:13 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
the "scandal" relies purely on the emotional reaction
Just a reminder of how, according to a certain someone that shall remain unnamed due to oversampling, is a tactic that only liberals use.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#13 Jul 30 2015 at 11:45 AM Rating: Good
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
It's more of a volume deal. At $100 a part x 500 abortions per day you're raking in 50k a day, all cash money.

I realize that you're being facetious but I'm sure there's an upper limit on how many fetal spleens the medical research community needs on any given day. Plus no one seems to dispute that these are voluntary donations on the mothers' part so not every abortion would yield usable tissue (early vs mid/late term) and not every abortion that potentially could yield usable tissue would be greenlighted to do so. Interestingly, the real money seems to come from the middle-man brokers who get the tissue from Planned Parenthood (or other medical facilities via stillbirths and miscarriages) at cost to cover expenses and then sell it for major bucks to the facilities who actually use it for science.

Honestly, the whole thing seems very similar to the embryonic stem cell debate. You're using embryos that are otherwise subject to incineration. Likewise, you're using fetal tissue that would otherwise be incinerated. PP obviously ain't realistically making cash monies off this and the "scandal" relies purely on the emotional reaction of "selling baby parts" by collecting fees to cover costs.


I guess the trick to really making this business boom is finding different uses for these baby parts. Can they be processed like corn? Maybe turn them into ethanol to fuel our cars?
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#14 Jul 30 2015 at 12:09 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Soylent Baby Greens.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#15 Jul 30 2015 at 1:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Soylent Green Baby Food.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#16 Jul 30 2015 at 3:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Honestly, the whole thing seems very similar to the embryonic stem cell debate. You're using embryos that are otherwise subject to incineration. Likewise, you're using fetal tissue that would otherwise be incinerated. PP obviously ain't realistically making cash monies off this and the "scandal" relies purely on the emotional reaction of "selling baby parts" by collecting fees to cover costs.


Except they're not using them or donating them. They are selling them. Which is illegal under federal law. I'm not sure what you mean by "PP obviously ain't realistically making cash monies off this". Is that just wishful thinking on your part? Just ducking your head in the sand and hoping that you don't see anything ugly?

I also love the whole "slippery slope being realized" aspect to this. You're even using the previous issue of embryonic stem cells as justification for the sale of fetal tissue. So... Um... When PP starts paying young poor women to become pregnant so that they can perform abortions and sell the resulting organ tissues, you'll be ok with it? Because at this point, you've basically justified every single step in that process.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#17 Jul 30 2015 at 3:51 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Selling of human organs is illegal. But if you are donating an organ, you get medical bills paid for and almost all testing, travel, and some time compensation. That's not exactly being paid for your kidney/liver, and is legal.

As for what to do with the abundant fetuses...

Seems pretty clear that the articles and edited videos against Planned Parenthood are playing the shock value of "OMG selling fetuses" without looking at it objectively.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#18 Jul 30 2015 at 4:51 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The fetal tissue is donated by consent of the mother. PP is allowed to recoup the cost of extracting and preserving the tissue, hence the $30 to $100 fee being charged. This is not "selling". Hence the "cash monies" comment -- fifty bucks for the tissue preservation frankly seems ridiculously cheap.

I also have to laugh that we're already at "this means you're in favor of getting pregnant to have fetal tissue abortions!" I guess the insanity had to go somewhere now that "you must be in favor of incestuous polygamy" arguments dried up.

Edited, Jul 30th 2015 6:39pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Jul 30 2015 at 5:13 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Dunno, it feels like I should care a little more, but I honestly can't get worked up about it. The only thing that I find mildly upsetting is that the judge in CA decided to block release of other videos.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#20 Jul 30 2015 at 6:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The lawsuit to block seems to be predicated on the people making the video signing a non-disclosure regarding the meeting and (possibly) due to wiretapping/recording without consent laws.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Jul 30 2015 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The lawsuit to block seems to be predicated on the people making the video signing a non-disclosure regarding the meeting and (possibly) due to wiretapping/recording without consent laws.


Which is amusingly at odds with current technology. Every teenager is carrying a microphone and camera with them, call recording is a standard feature in android phones. Apart from all this, the videos can easily be 'leaked'. All the non-disclosure means little if there is a buck to be made on the controversy.

I am not saying I am liking it, but we have been moving in that direction for a while now.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#22 Jul 30 2015 at 6:35 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The fetal tissue is donated by consent of the mother. PP is allowed to recoup the cost of extracting and preserving the tissue, hence the $30 to $100 fee being charged. This is not "selling".


At what dollar value does it become "selling"? The very idea of charging a service fee for the cost associated with "donating" something is problematic, at best (and yes, I'm aware that the legal loopholes already exist, I'm just pointing them out). When I donate clothes to Goodwill, I don't get to charge them a fee for sorting through my old clothes and transporting the ones I want to donate. Right? I'm not aware of any form of "donation" in which you negotiate a fee to the person/business/whatever you're donating to for some cost associated with said donation *except* the one that I suspect most of us find the most ghoulish and legally problematic (donating human tissues and organs).

Isn't that the least bit odd? Maybe it should fire off some alarm bells? Again, this is not limited to just aborted fetuses, but that's the issue we're looking at right here (and the one most problematic, because it's the one source that has the most potential to be abused). Barring committing murder (which is, you know, illegal), you can't control when someone's tissues or organs become available for donation. But, as you're well aware, abortion is legal. Ergo, you can control when fetal tissue becomes available, and how much. You can even influence the market in ways that you can't influence for normal adult body parts.

That makes this really problematic. Look. If PP wants to donate the left over bits from abortions, that's fine (well, sorta. see below). But then they should donate them, at their own expense. That's what donating things usually entails. I'll also point out that this is still problematic for an organization that receives public money that goes into the same pot that they use for their abortion operations. It's impossible to separate that, and can still become problematic. A bit of clever accounting and they can "cover" the cost for "donating" the parts with funding coming for other parts of their operation. Yes, I know this is part of an argument we've had several times before, but it's just one more reason in a long list of reasons why their abortion operation should be kept completely and financially separate (as in separate businesses, not just separate columns in an accounting ledger).


Quote:
Hence the "cash monies" comment -- fifty bucks for the tissue preservation frankly seems ridiculously cheap.


$50 for one liver. $90 for a brain. $30 for a pancreas. $45 for bone marrow. Etc, etc, etc. I believe they were talking about prices for each individual part of a fetus. And when you have rooms full of bags with fetus parts in them, that can amount to pretty huge amounts of money per year.

The other problem (which I don't believe has been mentioned here yet), is that the doctor in question was recorded actually talking about making decisions about how to perform an abortion with an eye towards preserving the most valuable (I don't think she actually said "profitable", so there's that) parts. Um... Which is also completely illegal. Explicitly so for the specific case of abortions. An abortion is supposed to be performed in a manner most safe to the woman having the procedure. Any viable parts left over may be donated, but no consideration to donation can be made when deciding how to perform the procedure itself. Right there, she's on record admitting to violation of the law. Even if we play games with what constitutes a "service charge" or "selling body parts", that bit can't be explained away.

It also strongly suggests a specific motivation to preserve those parts. Which I suppose we could imagine is based on an altruistic desire to advance the state of medical science by providing these much needed parts *or* out of a desire to generate a bit of additional revenue stream out of their abortion operations. The fact that they're charging a service fee to donate the parts kinda rules out the altruism explanation IMO. My money is on money.

Quote:
I also have to laugh that we're already at "this means you're in favor of getting pregnant to have fetal tissue abortions!" I guess the insanity had to go somewhere now that "you must be in favor of incestuous polygamy" arguments dried up.


I didn't say you must be in favor of it. I just said that it's no more illegal to pay a woman to get pregnant and then provide her an abortion later so as to harvest parts for stem cells or direct tissues or whatever than it is to harvest those things right now. If you're defending the actual illegal part (charging money to provide parts from aborted fetuses), then it's hard to imagine that you'd oppose the part that's already legal (surrogates being compensated isn't illegal I don't believe). The details of shuffling money around to manage this are no less difficult than shuffling the money around to negotiate a "service fee" to provide parts to a buyer today. Right?

I'm just pointing out that you're basically defending every component of that slippery slope. So it's legal to pay a woman to get pregnant. It's legal for that woman to choose to have an abortion (presumably if the person who paid her agrees, which would obviously be the case here). It's legal for the parts of the aborted fetus to be donated. And it's legal for the operate performing the abortion to charge a fee to the agency obtaining it. And you don't see a potential problem here?

Even if it's not PP doing the paying, what's to stop the biotech company they're contracted with from doing so, well outside the sight of most people? While I have issues with PP, my focus isn't about opposing PP. It's about making sure that our laws actually make sense and prevent abuses. And here, I see a huge potential for abuse. Ignoring that possibility out of a knee jerk need to defend PP and the rights of women to abortion just seems incredibly myopic. It's not really about PP. It's about not opening up the kind of horrific legal loopholes that I'm seeing being opened up. I said the same sort of thing in the numerous discussions we had about ESC research. Same deal. It's not about just what this one group in front of us is doing today, but what we're making possible for someone else to do tomorrow by blindly taking a position on the issue of today.

Is it so much to ask that we look down the road ahead of us and maybe make some effort to avoid the potholes? I don't think so.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Jul 30 2015 at 6:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
At what dollar value does it become "selling"?

Well, you're trying to establish that it is so why don't you start by citing what the costs should be for the extraction and preservation.

Quote:
The other problem (which I don't believe has been mentioned here yet), is that the doctor in question was recorded actually talking about making decisions about how to perform an abortion with an eye towards preserving the most valuable (I don't think she actually said "profitable", so there's that) parts. Um... Which is also completely illegal.

It's illegal to select a different method of abortion for that purpose. It's not illegal to avoid crushing a specific part of the body during the process of conducting the same procedure that you'd be conducting regardless.

Also, since you seem confused, I didn't say that PP was donating them. I said (and then clarified) that the mother in question consented to donate the tissue after the abortion in the same manner that a family member may consent for the deceased body to be used for organ transplanting, scientific research, etc. In other words, PP isn't stealing away fetuses and selling them out a trenchcoat, they are getting consent from the mother and then recouping the costs associated with it.

Edited, Jul 30th 2015 7:44pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Jul 30 2015 at 6:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The lawsuit to block seems to be predicated on the people making the video signing a non-disclosure regarding the meeting and (possibly) due to wiretapping/recording without consent laws.


Non-disclosure agreements don't normally apply when the information is about a crime (or even potential crime). If the organization in question had been any other than a darling of the Left, the judge would not have made that ruling. Let's at least be honest that the ruling itself was wholly politically based.

If this was a video showing executives (lets say at Walmart just to hit all the buttons) speaking to a hiring firm about how to get around minimum wage laws and avoid providing benefits to employees, would you be so accepting of a judge barring the release of said video because there was a non-disclosure agreement in effect? I'm betting not.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Jul 30 2015 at 6:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Non-disclosure agreements don't normally apply when the information is about a crime (or even potential crime).

Yeah, as much as I'd love to play a round of "Gbaji pretends to be a retarded lawyer" with you, I think I'll pass.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Jul 30 2015 at 6:53 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:



The other problem (which I don't believe has been mentioned here yet), is that the doctor in question was recorded actually talking about making decisions about how to perform an abortion with an eye towards preserving the most valuable (I don't think she actually said "profitable", so there's that) parts. Um... Which is also completely illegal. Explicitly so for the specific case of abortions. An abortion is supposed to be performed in a manner most safe to the woman having the procedure. Any viable parts left over may be donated, but no consideration to donation can be made when deciding how to perform the procedure itself. Right there, she's on record admitting to violation of the law. Even if we play games with what constitutes a "service charge" or "selling body parts", that bit can't be explained away.


Strangely enough, this is not bad a point. I would like to point out however that even before this event there was a lot of pushback in traditionally 'conservative' ( quotation marks, because it the phrase becomes even less helpful than 'liberul' ) states making PP a target of choice for anti-abortion crowd ( with full or partial support of legislature), which in turn, probably, forced PP to try to come up with some way to cover expenses.

Odds are I am more naive than I believe myself to be, because I saw doctors that worked at places like PP, or doctors without borders a little above the fray ( with cynic in me pointing out that it does look good on resume and adds 'tail pull' to your skillset ). If the doctor focuses on the organs more, they might not be above the fray after all.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 149 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (149)