Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Planned ParenthoodFollow

#27 Jul 30 2015 at 6:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
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.


It doesn't matter. If they are donating, then they are donating. The moment they charge the organization they're providing the parts to money, that's called "selling".

The "extraction" cannot legally be planned. By law, they can only donate the parts from an aborted fetus that just happen to remain and may not plan at all for them. So the cost is already paid for as part of the abortion procedure. If they're calculating an additional cost for performing abortions in a manner which preserves organs, then they are in violation of the law. Preservation is up to them, obviously. But so is my choice to keep old socks in a drawer until I donate them. That's a cost they must choose to bear if they want to donate. Period.

There should be no money at all exchanging hands between PP and any company they donate parts to. Period. That there is at all automatically makes it impossible to differentiate between donating and selling. Which, if we were talking about an old car or something, isn't a huge deal. When we're talking about human body parts? Big deal.

Quote:
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.


Wrong:

Quote:
(ii) no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue; and


If the doctor adjusts what part of the fetus to grab when pulling it out (we're pretty much speaking of partial birth or similar types of abortion here btw), for the purpose of obtaining tissue to donate, that is in direct violation of the law. If she were going to use the forceps on part X of the fetus because that's the best part to grab for performing a safe abortion, she'd do that and wouldn't need to make any changes. The fact that she discussed, on video, deciding what parts to crush so as to preserve tissue for donation is an admission of violating this law. There's no way around that.


I'm sure you'll argue that if it's just as safe to grab it here or there, so it makes no difference, but that's not the point. She admitted to making a conscious decision to adjust what part of the fetus to damage while performing an abortion so as to maximize the usable tissue for donation. She violated the law. Period.

Edited, Jul 30th 2015 6:10pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 Jul 30 2015 at 7:06 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
And this also does not mention the 800lb gorilla that may be lurking around the corner here. She also discussed tissue prices based on trimester of abortion. Which raises the specter that abortion procedures could also be scheduled based on the demand of the tissue customer rather than the health needs of the woman having the procedure. Now, I haven't seen anything that directly shows this to be happening, but it's yet another reason why the very idea that they're receiving money for this is a huge problem. It opens up the potential for abuse. If they're just donating whatever they have and no money changes hands, then we can reasonably assume that there is no motivation to make any adjustments for the purpose of donating. But the second money becomes involved, it creates a motive.


It's just a really bad idea. It creates a conflict of interest between their patients and their tissue customers. That just seems rife with peril.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Jul 30 2015 at 7:07 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You apparently don't realize that the law allows them to recoup the costs. Or you don't know what "selling" means.

You also don't understand "method or procedure" so I have high hopes for this thread. Shades of the ESC debates (where you amusingly suggested that shady Caribbean doctors would start impregnating young women to harvest their embryos... This really is shades of the ESC debates all around)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Jul 30 2015 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You apparently don't realize that the law allows them to recoup the costs. Or you don't know what "selling" means.


I do realize this. I said in my first post on this subject that I was aware that the loophole existed already (and in broader context than just abortion). My point in that regard is that this is a very problematic aspect of the law in question, and perhaps should be reconsidered, precisely because it's just so easy for abuse. I'll also point out that that portion of the law only speaks to the illegality of buying fetal tissue. Ironically, there's nothing in the code I could find about selling it.

That side of the equation is handled in the portion about how one obtains tissue for donation in the first place. Which makes it doubly important that we not allow even a hint of possibility that abortions may be performed in any way with an eye towards potential future donation of tissue. And yet, here we have her on video talking about doing exactly that.

Quote:
You also don't understand "method or procedure" so I have high hopes for this thread.


The fact that they used two words suggests two different things, right? So "procedure" would be the actual medical procedure chosen (MVA, D&E, D&C, etc). "method" is presumably about the specifics of how said procedure is performed. Like say, choosing to grab one part of a fetus for extraction instead of another so as to preserve more valuable tissue.

What do you think "method" means in this context? And do you honestly believe that the text of this code excludes a doctor making choices about where to place forceps while performing an abortion because that's not a "method" (or whatever you're going to claim). I think any reasonable person reading that code would conclude that it prohibits the doctor taking potential tissue donation into account at all when planning, scheduling, or performing an abortion. Something the doctor in question is on video admitting to doing.

Edited, Jul 30th 2015 6:30pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Jul 30 2015 at 7:39 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Let me add, that for the law to make any sense at all (and to work at all), it *must* be interpreted the way I just wrote. As I pointed out, the only prohibition is on buying tissue, not selling it. The prohibition on the supply side is entirely on not allowing intentional medical decisions that result in tissue for donation. That's the only "check" on that side of the equation. That only works if doctors are 100% not allowed to consider potential tissue donation at all. Tissue for donation must always be the result of happenstance, not planned. That may seem absurd, or even unworkable, but if it's anything else, then you open up some pretty ghoulish possibilities.

And yes, I'm aware that in the real world, a doctor is likely to at least somewhat take potential tissue/organ preservation into account. But if you're actually changing your actions so as to preserve said tissue, you really ought to be punished. If for no other reason than to serve as an example to the next guy. What we don't want is a world where the ER doctor is thinking even a little bit about how to adjust his medical actions so as to preserve your organs for possible donation if you don't survive. Right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Jul 30 2015 at 7:44 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Being as you, gbaji, have repeatedly stated on this forum that you have no moral issue with abortion, why do you care?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#33 Jul 30 2015 at 7:45 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
gbaji wrote:
What we don't want is a world where the ER doctor is thinking even a little bit about how to adjust his medical actions so as to preserve your organs for possible donation if you don't survive. Right?


Except we aren't talking about a living person, right? Or even a person in medical danger. They aren't taking a viable life and creating a donor situation without permission. Flip side, would you not want a mortician to preserve the organs of a dead person who agreed to donate their organs on death?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#34 Jul 30 2015 at 7:45 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I do realize this. I said in my first post on this subject that I was aware that the loophole existed already (and in broader context than just abortion).

It's not a "loophole", it's an explicit part of the law.

Quote:
The fact that they used two words suggests two different things, right? So "procedure" would be the actual medical procedure chosen (MVA, D&E, D&C, etc). "method" is presumably about the specifics of how said procedure is performed. Like say, choosing to grab one part of a fetus for extraction instead of another so as to preserve more valuable tissue.

Which is an assumption on your part that the method calls for grabbing a specific section rather than the physician making the decision himself, each decision being wholly appropriate the that step of the method.

Also, just because you learn something new every day, the prohibition against changing method or procedure applies only to tissue obtained for federally funded research. See this 2000 Congressional hearing where the same topic was discussed following a 20/20 expose (not into PP but the greater topic).
GPO wrote:
In 1993, Congress made it illegal to buy and sell human fetal tissue for valuable consideration. Federal regulations also prohibit anyone from altering the timing, method, or procedures of abortion solely for the purpose of obtaining human fetal tissue and require a woman's informed consent before fetal tissue can be used for research purposes.
While these latter restrictions are limited to federally funded transplantation research only, many independent researchers have adopted similar guidelines because of the ethical and patient safety issues involved in such matters.

So you really have two hurdles here before hooting about how it's "absolutely illegal" -- proving that the method was actually changed and showing evidence that the research involved was federally funded.

Ok... go.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Jul 30 2015 at 8:50 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Being as you, gbaji, have repeatedly stated on this forum that you have no moral issue with abortion, why do you care?


Because it's not about abortion. It's about the potential for the "kickback" value of the tissue (even at a relatively small price per part) affecting medical choices when performing abortions, which may in turn affect the health decisions of the doctors, patients, etc. The only consideration should be the choice to abort, and not whether there might be a tissue donation bonus at the end of the process. Once you add that in, you create the potential for all sorts of abuse.

I have also never said I have no moral issue with abortion. It think it's a terrible choice to make, and I would recommend against it for anyone considering said choice. What I have said, repeatedly and very clearly, is that I don't believe that my personal objection to the choice should outweigh the rights of others to make a different choice. I know that it's hard for those in the "my morality must be law" crowd to accept, but some of us really do place the concept of individual freedoms and rights in high regard and are willing to accept the others can make different choices than we do. That is, IMO, at the very heart of a "pro choice" position on abortion. Sadly, over time, it's morphed into "pro abortion". Which leads people to do things like blindly defend PP when they engage in incredibly questionable behavior.


[quote]
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What we don't want is a world where the ER doctor is thinking even a little bit about how to adjust his medical actions so as to preserve your organs for possible donation if you don't survive. Right?


Except we aren't talking about a living person, right? Or even a person in medical danger. They aren't taking a viable life and creating a donor situation without permission. Flip side, would you not want a mortician to preserve the organs of a dead person who agreed to donate their organs on death?


I thought the whole point of this was to preserve the rights of the woman having the abortion. Again, the entire point of pro-choice as a position is that the right for a woman to control her own body and medical decisions and health outweighs that of an embryo or early fetus to live. If the doctor is making decisions with regard to the abortion other than her choice and her health, that creates a problem. The woman is also involved in a medical procedure here. She's the one we're protecting. Not the freaking fetus.

How'd you forget about the woman?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Jul 30 2015 at 9:00 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
How'd you forget about the woman?
She's hidden behind your massive strawman.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#37 Jul 30 2015 at 9:12 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
I have also never said I have no moral issue with abortion.
Usually, you don't lie so directly.

It's refreshing in a weird sort of way.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#38 Jul 30 2015 at 9:43 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What we don't want is a world where the ER doctor is thinking even a little bit about how to adjust his medical actions so as to preserve your organs for possible donation if you don't survive. Right?


Except we aren't talking about a living person, right? Or even a person in medical danger. They aren't taking a viable life and creating a donor situation without permission. Flip side, would you not want a mortician to preserve the organs of a dead person who agreed to donate their organs on death?


I thought the whole point of this was to preserve the rights of the woman having the abortion. Again, the entire point of pro-choice as a position is that the right for a woman to control her own body and medical decisions and health outweighs that of an embryo or early fetus to live. If the doctor is making decisions with regard to the abortion other than her choice and her health, that creates a problem. The woman is also involved in a medical procedure here. She's the one we're protecting. Not the freaking fetus.

How'd you forget about the woman?


I was replying specifically to your stupid comment about how a doctor not destroying the body of an aborted fetus was the same as a doctor killing a patient instead of saving them in order to take their organs.

The woman isn't involved in your dumb comparison.
(Beyond the abortion rights, of course, but that's a separate issue from fetal tissue donations and storage/compensation)

Edited, Jul 30th 2015 11:54pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#39 Jul 30 2015 at 10:18 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Quote:
Sadly, over time, it's morphed into "pro abortion".
That's such nonsense BS. Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#40 Jul 31 2015 at 7:54 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Being as you, gbaji, have repeatedly stated on this forum that you have no moral issue with abortion, why do you care?
Our Lady of the Crying Elephant here is deeply motivated against all things he's been manipulated into being against.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#41 Jul 31 2015 at 8:19 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
Sadly, over time, it's morphed into "pro abortion".
That's such nonsense BS. Smiley: oyvey

Come on now. Whenever I hear that someone might be pregnant, it's all "Hive five! Abortion time!"

Sometimes a few weeks go by where we don't to have any abortions but we know how to fix that problem.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Jul 31 2015 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
Truly, the opportunities are endless when abortions are involved.
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#43 Jul 31 2015 at 8:33 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Gay abortions?

Edited, Jul 31st 2015 10:34am by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#44 Jul 31 2015 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"Hive five! Abortion time!"
You are one jive turkey.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#45 Jul 31 2015 at 9:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
L. Cohen wrote:
Destroy another fetus now
We don't like children anyhow.
I've seen the future baby --
It is murder
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Aug 03 2015 at 11:36 AM Rating: Good
***
2,188 posts
Wow, I miss a weekend's worth of posts and this place catches the stupid disease. So much misinformation, illogical conclusions, and troll comments. My head hurts from reading this garbage.

I give you credit Jophiel and Tirith, I don't know how you have the stamina for this. But I still think you're being trolled masterfully.

____________________________
"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering, April 1946.
#47 Aug 03 2015 at 2:26 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
TirithRR wrote:
I was replying specifically to your stupid comment about how a doctor not destroying the body of an aborted fetus was the same as a doctor killing a patient instead of saving them in order to take their organs.


In both cases, the "patient" is the living, breathing, fully developed with full rights as a person, person lying on the table in front of the doctor. In both cases, the doctor may put the need to preserve tissue/organs for future use ahead of the safety of the patient. In both cases, that's not something the doctor should even be thinking about. In both cases, the correct solution is to not create even the potential for such a conflict of interest.

Quote:
The woman isn't involved in your dumb comparison.


Huh? The woman is the patient during an abortion procedure, not the fetus. She's most definitely involved. Women do occasionally die during these procedures. It's rare, but it does happen. Anything that may shift the priorities of the doctors actions during any medical procedure is relevant.


I guess I just find it interesting that people will fight tooth and nail for a woman to have a right to have an abortion, but not the right to have it done as safely as possible. Strange.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 Aug 03 2015 at 2:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The woman is the patient during an abortion procedure, not the fetus. She's most definitely involved. Women do occasionally die during these procedures.

From forceps placement on the fetus? Got a cite for that or is this just a fever dream?

I mean, people die in the dentist chair as well but that's not a great reason by itself to argue which flavor fluoride treatment is acceptable Pro-tip: they're all terrible
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#49 Aug 03 2015 at 3:27 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
In both cases, the "patient" is the living, breathing, fully developed with full rights as a person.
Now I'm confused.

Babies are...corporations?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#50 Aug 03 2015 at 4:02 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
cynyck wrote:
Wow, I miss a weekend's worth of posts and this place catches the stupid disease. So much misinformation, illogical conclusions, and troll comments. My head hurts from reading this garbage.

I give you credit Jophiel and Tirith, I don't know how you have the stamina for this. But I still think you're being trolled masterfully.

It's just varus, doesn't have anything better to do than to get around his bans for a handful of posts.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#51 Aug 03 2015 at 4:10 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I assume he meant trolled by Gbaji.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 159 All times are in CST
stupidmonkey, Anonymous Guests (158)