Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

am946745

Well the devil has shown his colours. The abortion industries dirty side.

Glad to see its not making the rounds in pro-life circles but also in secular Media.

Sickening.

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/14/planned-parenthood-defends-selling-body-parts-of-aborted-babies-calls-body-parts-tissue/

Its worth noting that mothers are being paid for the "donated" body parts of their children.

lazybones32

This is sickening but not surprising. Weren't Irish children's organs harvested - without consent - about 10 years ago? On another chat-room I used frequent some years ago, an American anti-circumcision 'activist' gave referenced details of how the foreskin is sold to companies for use in their "anti-ageing" creams. I wonder if women know/care that their youthful complexion is down to rubbing the remains of a baby boys foreskin on their face?

It's good that these cases are brought to light, but it is not an isolated scenario. The article could do with describing where exactly the organs go and what "valuable" research is being conducted. If selling aborted children's organs is illegal, did they inform authorities? I don't recall the article stating if they did or not.

am946745

I suppose what is worse is women who are desperate for money are aborting to get paid.

FISMA.

It is sickening for a doctor, who took the Hippocratic Oath to describe where to crush an unborn child to death in order to save specific organs.

Delirium

Seems like it's some misrepresentation by a pro-life group.

In the video, Planned Parenthood Senior Director Deborah Nucatola says some pretty graphic and seemingly disturbing things about tissue donation:

A lot of people want intact hearts these days, because they’re looking for specific nodes... Some people want lower extremities too, which, that’s simple. I mean, that’s easy.

She then goes on to talk about what sounds like Planned Parenthood’s monetary reward:

Every provider has had patients who want to donate their tissue, and they absolutely want to accommodate them. They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, “This clinic is selling tissue, this clinic is making money off of this.”

Except that, as Planned Parenthood told The Hill, its affiliates “can legally receive reimbursement from a tissue donation procedure for the ‘additional expenses related tissue donation, which can vary based on individual circumstance,’ but it does not go to staff members or providers.” These “additional expenses” might be the $10-30 it costs to transport the tissue being donated, which Planned Parenthood notes is “standard across the medical field.” And no, the patient donating the tissue doesn’t receive any financial reimbursement either.

In reality, the donation of fetal tissue is no different than any other situation in which a patient might donate tissue to scientific research. No money changes hands, and the donation could help pave the way to any number of medical breakthroughs.

Of course, that doesn’t stop the people behind the video’s release from going to great lengths to try to paint Planned Parenthood as operating outside the law. According to The Center for Medical Progress’s accompanying release, “The video is the first by The Center for Medical Progress in its ‘Human Capital’ series, a nearly 3-year-long investigative journalism study of Planned Parenthood’s illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts.”

While Planned Parenthood notes that the group is “a long time anti-abortion activist that has used deceptive and unethical video editing, and that has created a fake medical website as well as a fake human tissue website that purports to provide services to stem cell researchers.” (For what it’s worth, the Center for Medical Progress did finally release the full video, though its claims remain just as flawed.)

The video itself opens with a short clip of former Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt that is edited to give the appearance of condemning the recorded conversation that follows. But the 20/20 segment on which Feldt appears is actually an investigation into abuses made by private sector “tissue and organ procurement companies.” And Feldt even went on to later affirm that “Planned Parenthood supports research using fetal tissue in accordance with legal and ethical guidelines and are deeply concerned about the attempt by some to profit from the humanitarian contributions of courageous women.”

In other words, this is a case of words being taken grossly out of context. Planned Parenthood is doing nothing even remotely shady here, nor are they doing something they haven’t publicly discussed before on multiple occasions. The real question now, though, is who’s behind this whole campaign in the first place.

The video, which had supposedly been held onto for a year before being released earlier this morning, was put out by The Center for Medical Progress, which describes itself as “a group of citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances.” Oddly enough, 10 of the the 11 total tweets made by the group’s Twitter account are from today, while the only two posts on its website seem to be about the Planned Parenthood video. And just like its Twitter account, the group’s Facebook page is only a few months old.

Source

Also, just FYI, you can't mark threads as 'Christian thread'. I presumed it was to be read as Christian only' so I've removed that tag.

am946745

FISMA. wrote: »

It is sickening for a doctor, who took the Hippocratic Oath to describe where to crush an unborn child to death in order to save specific organs.

Its like the movie the Island. I see the socialist party and people before profit pushing abortion. What we have here is people procured for profit.

am946745

SW.. Bottom line they are PAYING mothers for the aborted children.. Right... You can't dress it up any other way. intentionally killing a child for its organs.

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

SW.. Bottom line they are PAYING mothers for the aborted children.. Right... You can't dress it up any other way. intentionally killing a child for its organs.

Not according to linked article I posted.

am946745

SW wrote: »

Not according to linked article I posted.

I know you are bias for pro-choice side..

so they are lying the video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnU

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

I know you are bias for pro-choice side..

so they are lying the video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnU

Based on the link I provided, yes. They claim body parts are sold. That isn't correct according to the linked article.

The body parts are donated, i.e. nobody is paid for the donation.

am946745

SW wrote: »

Based on the link I provided, yes. They claim body parts are sold. That isn't correct according to the linked article.

The body parts are donated, i.e. nobody is paid for the donation.

Did you watch the video?

lazybones32

SW wrote: »

Not according to linked article I posted.

A reputable site, maybe(?). I like how their first story, when I visited their home page is "Michael Douglas says he has a big ****; I wanna see the receipts". It shows that they are to be taken seriously!
If I remember correctly, this is not the first obscure website you've cited to bolster your 'argument'.



(the asterisks stand for a slang word for male genitalia, starting with d and ending with k, but certain words attract warnings, so I dare not post it)

hinault

SW wrote: »

Seems like it's some misrepresentation by a pro-life group.

Seems like it's some misrepresentation by a pro-life group.
Quote:
In the video, Planned Parenthood Senior Director Deborah Nucatola says some pretty graphic and seemingly disturbing things about tissue donation:
Quote:

A lot of people want intact hearts these days, because they’re looking for specific nodes... Some people want lower extremities too, which, that’s simple. I mean, that’s easy.
She then goes on to talk about what sounds like Planned Parenthood’s monetary reward:
Quote:

Every provider has had patients who want to donate their tissue, and they absolutely want to accommodate them. They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, “This clinic is selling tissue, this clinic is making money off of this.”
Except that, as Planned Parenthood told The Hill, its affiliates “can legally receive reimbursement from a tissue donation procedure for the ‘additional expenses related tissue donation, which can vary based on individual circumstance,’ but it does not go to staff members or providers.” These “additional expenses” might be the $10-30 it costs to transport the tissue being donated, which Planned Parenthood notes is “standard across the medical field.” And no, the patient donating the tissue doesn’t receive any financial reimbursement either.

In reality, the donation of fetal tissue is no different than any other situation in which a patient might donate tissue to scientific research. No money changes hands, and the donation could help pave the way to any number of medical breakthroughs.

Of course, that doesn’t stop the people behind the video’s release from going to great lengths to try to paint Planned Parenthood as operating outside the law. According to The Center for Medical Progress’s accompanying release, “The video is the first by The Center for Medical Progress in its ‘Human Capital’ series, a nearly 3-year-long investigative journalism study of Planned Parenthood’s illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts.”

While Planned Parenthood notes that the group is “a long time anti-abortion activist that has used deceptive and unethical video editing, and that has created a fake medical website as well as a fake human tissue website that purports to provide services to stem cell researchers.” (For what it’s worth, the Center for Medical Progress did finally release the full video, though its claims remain just as flawed.)

The video itself opens with a short clip of former Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt that is edited to give the appearance of condemning the recorded conversation that follows. But the 20/20 segment on which Feldt appears is actually an investigation into abuses made by private sector “tissue and organ procurement companies.” And Feldt even went on to later affirm that “Planned Parenthood supports research using fetal tissue in accordance with legal and ethical guidelines and are deeply concerned about the attempt by some to profit from the humanitarian contributions of courageous women.”

In other words, this is a case of words being taken grossly out of context. Planned Parenthood is doing nothing even remotely shady here, nor are they doing something they haven’t publicly discussed before on multiple occasions. The real question now, though, is who’s behind this whole campaign in the first place.

The video, which had supposedly been held onto for a year before being released earlier this morning, was put out by The Center for Medical Progress, which describes itself as “a group of citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances.” Oddly enough, 10 of the the 11 total tweets made by the group’s Twitter account are from today, while the only two posts on its website seem to be about the Planned Parenthood video. And just like its Twitter account, the group’s Facebook page is only a few months old..

American law says otherwise

42 U.S. Code § 289g–2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue

(a) Purchase of tissue

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.

(b) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue as directed donation for use in transplantation

It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue for the purpose of transplantation of such tissue into another person if the donation affects interstate commerce, the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion, and—

(1) the donation will be or is made pursuant to a promise to the donating individual that the donated tissue will be transplanted into a recipient specified by such individual;
(2) the donated tissue will be transplanted into a relative of the donating individual; or
(3) the person who solicits or knowingly acquires, receives, or accepts the donation has provided valuable consideration for the costs associated with such abortion.
(c) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes

It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to—

(1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
(2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.

(d) Criminal penalties for violations

(1) In general
Any person who violates subsection (a), (b), or (c) shall be fined in accordance with title 18, subject to paragraph (2), or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
(2) Penalties applicable to persons receiving consideration
With respect to the imposition of a fine under paragraph (1), if the person involved violates subsection (a) or (b)(3), a fine shall be imposed in an amount not less than twice the amount of the valuable consideration received.

(e) Definitions
For purposes of this section:
(1) The term “human fetal tissue” has the meaning given such term in section 289g–1 (g) of this title.
(2) The term “interstate commerce” has the meaning given such term in section 321 (b) of title 21.
(3) The term “valuable consideration” does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.

Delirium

lazybones32 wrote: »

A reputable site, maybe(?). I like how their first story, when I visited their home page is "Michael Douglas says he has a big ****; I wanna see the receipts". It shows that they are to be taken seriously!
If I remember correctly, this is not the first obscure website you've cited to bolster your 'argument'.

(the asterisks stand for a slang word for male genitalia, starting with d and ending with k, but certain words attract warnings, so I dare not post it)

Gawker is obscure? it has something like 23 million visitors a month.

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

Did you watch the video?

Yes. And I see no definitive evidence of selling of body parts.

I saw mention of the $30-$100 value but that was explained as probably transport/storage costs in my link.

hinault wrote: »

American law says otherwise

42 U.S. Code § 289g–2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue

(a) Purchase of tissue

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.

(b) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue as directed donation for use in transplantation

It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue for the purpose of transplantation of such tissue into another person if the donation affects interstate commerce, the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion, and—

(1) the donation will be or is made pursuant to a promise to the donating individual that the donated tissue will be transplanted into a recipient specified by such individual;
(2) the donated tissue will be transplanted into a relative of the donating individual; or
(3) the person who solicits or knowingly acquires, receives, or accepts the donation has provided valuable consideration for the costs associated with such abortion.
(c) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes

It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to—

(1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
(2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.

(d) Criminal penalties for violations

(1) In general
Any person who violates subsection (a), (b), or (c) shall be fined in accordance with title 18, subject to paragraph (2), or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
(2) Penalties applicable to persons receiving consideration
With respect to the imposition of a fine under paragraph (1), if the person involved violates subsection (a) or (b)(3), a fine shall be imposed in an amount not less than twice the amount of the valuable consideration received.

(e) Definitions
For purposes of this section:
(1) The term “human fetal tissue” has the meaning given such term in section 289g–1 (g) of this title.
(2) The term “interstate commerce” has the meaning given such term in section 321 (b) of title 21.
(3) The term “valuable consideration” does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.

Where did I say it was lawful to sell human tissue?

From the link I provided:

In reality, the donation of fetal tissue is no different than any other situation in which a patient might donate tissue to scientific research. No money changes hands, and the donation could help pave the way to any number of medical breakthroughs.

Also, some additional links regarding this video/story.

3 Deceptive Edits In The Video Claiming Planned Parenthood Is "Selling Aborted Baby Parts"

Snopes page on the video. Verdict is currently 'Undetermined' to the veracity of the claims of the video

And there's susipicion that the video may have been put together by a man with a criminal record due to his editing of 'investigative' videos. (via Snopes).

An individual named David Daleiden has been widely credited as the “leader” of the Center for Medical Progress. While Daleiden’s online footprint is minimal, a 2009 Claremont University article (penned by fellow conservative activist Chuck Johnson) reported:

James O’Keefe is a friend of David Daleiden’s. O’Keefe and Hannah Giles have been going coast to coast documenting instances of ACORN employees willingly giving advice on how to avoid paying taxes and shielding a would be pimp (running for congress) and a prostitutent from the watchful eye of the law. They’ve brought their investigation to New York City, Washington D.C., and Baltimore.

O’Keefe came to prominence in 2009 after he produced “egregiously misleading” and “severely edited” videos targeting agencies such as ACORN:

Videotapes secretly recorded and severely edited by O’Keefe seemed to show ACORN employees encouraging a “pimp” (O’Keefe) and his “prostitute,” actually a Florida college student named Hannah Miles, in conversations involving prostitution by underage girls, human trafficking and cheating on taxes. Those videos created a media sensation.

Delirium

Planned Parenthood: claims director offered to sell fetal body parts are ‘false’ (The Guardian)

Planned Parenthood’s US headquarters has denied that an eight-minute undercover video shows the abortion provider’s medical director offering to sell fetal body parts to a tissue procurement company, as a pro-life group has claimed.

“In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different,” Planned Parenthood’s vice president for communications, Eric Ferrero, said in a statement.

“There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood,” the statement said. “In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.”

[...]
Planned Parenthood called the allegation “false” and said such claims have been “put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades”.

The organization blamed the video on a “well funded group established for the purpose of damaging” the abortion provider’s reputation.

The Center for Medical Progress bills itself as a “group of citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring ... medical ethics”. The undercover video of the Planned Parenthood doctor appears to be the organization’s only publication.

hinault

SW wrote: »

Yes. And I see no definitive evidence of selling of body parts.

I saw mention of the $30-$100 value but that was explained as probably transport/storage costs in my link.



Where did I say it was lawful to sell human tissue?

From the link I provided:

Also, some additional links regarding this video/story.

3 Deceptive Edits In The Video Claiming Planned Parenthood Is "Selling Aborted Baby Parts"

Snopes page on the video. Verdict is currently 'Undetermined' to the veracity of the claims of the video

And there's susipicion that the video may have been put together by a man with a criminal record due to his editing of 'investigative' videos. (via Snopes).

The tape of the conversation with the doctor runs for 2 hours and 24 minutes. The 2 hour 24 minute tape has been published on social media.

Which bit of the 2 hour 24 minute tape was edited?

In respect of the American statute law, it is up to the American investigating authorities to decide if what is described by the doctor on the 2 hour 24 minute tape constitutes criminality.

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

The tape of the conversation with the doctor runs for 2 hours and 24 minutes. The 2 hour 24 minute tape has been published on social media.

Which bit of the 2 hour 24 minute tape was edited?

In respect of the American statute law, it is up to the American investigating authorities to decide if what is described by the doctor on the 2 hour 24 minute tape constitutes criminality.

The video that was originally posted was 8 mins long . It was only after complaints due to the obvious editing that the extended video was released.

I haven't had time to watch a 2.5 hour video (or seen much analysis of it yet) so can't comment on whether that has been edited also.

hinault

SW wrote: »

I haven't had time to watch a 2.5 hour video

Well when you do find time to watch the 2.5 hour video, feel free to tell us which bit was edited.

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

Well when you do find time to watch the 2.5 hour video, feel free to tell us which bit was edited.

you realise that it's the 8 min video that I said was edited. It's 8 minutes long, so it's obviously edited.

hinault

SW wrote: »

you realise that it's the 8 min video that I said was edited. It's 8 minutes long, so it's obviously edited.

Sure.

The entire 2 hour 24 minute tape is far more damning than the 8 minute "edited" tape.

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

Sure.

The entire 2 hour 24 minute tape is far more damning than the 8 minute "edited" tape.

What's contained in the longer video that's more damning than the content of the 8 min video?

hinault

SW wrote: »

What's contained in the longer video that's more damning than the content of the 8 min video?

Watch the 2 hour 24 minute video and then make up your own mind whether or not it's more damning than the 8 minute video.

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

Watch the 2 hour 24 minute video and then make up your own mind whether or not it's more damning than the 8 minute video.

you made a claim, it's not much to ask you to explain/expand on the claim, is it? I presume you have watched the 2.5 hour video?

hinault

SW wrote: »

I presume you have watched the 2.5 hour video?

Of course, I did.

SW wrote: »

you made a claim, it's not much to ask you to explain/expand on the claim, is it?

Without watching the entire 2 hour 24 minute video, you wouldn't be in a position to test the veracity of my claim regardless.

So my advice to you is, watch the entire video and when you do only then you can make up your mind as to the veracity of my claim.

lazybones32

SW wrote: »

Gawker is obscure? it has something like 23 million visitors a month.

From Wiki - '(Gawker) promotes itself as "the source for daily Manhattan media news and gossip". It focuses on celebrities and the media industry.'
I should never have questioned the referencing of a celeb-focused website when discussing alleged organ-selling. A valid source indeed!

Delirium

lazybones32 wrote: »

From Wiki - '(Gawker) promotes itself as "the source for daily Manhattan media news and gossip". It focuses on celebrities and the media industry.'
I should never have questioned the referencing of a celeb-focused website when discussing alleged organ-selling. A valid source indeed!

as opposed to the LifeNews.com?

From their twitter:

LifeNews.com is the #1 pro-life web site battling abortion, euthanasia, & celebrating life.

people in glass houses and all that.

EDIT: I have included the Guardian as a source too.

And CNN:

Though Planned Parenthood has described the Center for Medical Progress footage as a hit piece by "a well-funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood's mission and services," Nucatola acknowledges in the video that Planned Parenthood's national office sees the potential for controversy.

"So, we tried to do this, and at the national office we have a Litigation and Law Department that just really doesn't want us to be the middle people for this issue right now," she said. "And so we had a conversation, and we said, 'What if we go out and find everyone who is doing this and present everybody with a menu?' And at the end of the day they just decided that right now, it's just too touchy an issue for us to be an official middleman."

In another part of the video, the doctor tells the undercover actors that "behind closed doors," Planned Parenthood's affiliates are discussing how to handle the matter.

"Every provider has had patients who want to donate their tissue, and they absolutely want to accommodate them. They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as 'This clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this,' " she said.

The edited version of the video appears to be missing important context that's provided in the longer video. For instance, one of the actors asks Nucatola about prices for the organs.

"OK, so when you are, or the (Planned Parenthood) affiliate is determining what that monetary ... so that it doesn't raise any question of 'This is what it's about; this is the main,' what price range would you ..." the woman asks, her question trailing off.

Nucatola responds that the price would be between $30 and $100 per specimen, with consideration for what facility is used and "what's involved." It's not clear if a specimen constitutes the entire organ or only samples of it.

Nucatola doesn't specifically say that the price is for the purchase of the tissue, but the comment troubled bioethicist Art Caplan of New York University, who said after watching the edited version of the video it sounds like Planned Parenthood might be trying to make a profit.

But in the longer version of the video, Nucatola elaborates and appears to say the price is related to the cost of performing the procedure and shipping.

which does show that there is some things to be concerned about that are mentioned in the video.

Another part of the video also raised concerns for Caplan. Nucatola talks about doctors performing abortions in which ultrasound is used to ascertain the best location to grab the fetus with forceps.

"We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver because we know that, I'm not going to crush that part," she says.

Altering procedures in order to get tissue in the best condition would be a "big no-no," the bioethicist said, because the patient's health is paramount and that should be the only concern for doctors. Caplan did not comment specifically on whether the ultrasound procedure would endanger the mother, but he made it clear that any deviation from normal procedures is unacceptable.

"In abortion the primary goal is to give the safest abortion possible," Caplan said. "Your sole concern has to be the mother and her health."

Why didn't the group lead with that? Something that is much clearer based on what is said in the video rather than trying to spin something ambigious?

hinault

lazybones32 wrote: »

From Wiki - '(Gawker) promotes itself as "the source for daily Manhattan media news and gossip". It focuses on celebrities and the media industry.'
I should never have questioned the referencing of a celeb-focused website when discussing alleged organ-selling. A valid source indeed!

Gawker, the media of record

Not a NSA agent

lazybones32 wrote: »

From Wiki - '(Gawker) promotes itself as "the source for daily Manhattan media news and gossip". It focuses on celebrities and the media industry.'
I should never have questioned the referencing of a celeb-focused website when discussing alleged organ-selling. A valid source indeed!

And yet no comments on using lifenews as a source. Pots and kettles.

lazybones32

SW wrote: »

as opposed to the LifeNews.com?





people in glass houses and all that.

EDIT: I have included the Guardian as a source too.





which does show that there is some things to be concerned about that are mentioned in the video.



Why didn't the group lead with that? Something that is much clearer based on what is said in the video rather than trying to spin something ambigious?

Lifenews, source their news from other agencies and credit them. I wonder why you led your references with Gawker and then added the Guardian? (whose piece is very similar to International Business Times page last night and includes Dr. Caplan's quotes)

At least now, you are admitting that there may be some things of concern raised in the video; a slight change from your stance last night that it is just misrepresentation.

No point asking me about the methodology the group chose. I questioned if the authorities were informed first but maybe in American Society, it is better to garner Public attention first. Planned Parenthood are a very large Corporation with many influential members, advocates and benefactors.
According to the IBT last night, the Dr. Nuc...? at the centre of the case has gone "off the grid": twitter and FB pages cancelled (but her linkedin page remains open) and the President of the Corporation has already publicly defended her. Their PR machine went straight to work.

Delirium

lazybones32 wrote: »

Lifenews, source their news from other agencies and credit them. I wonder why you led your references with Gawker and then added the Guardian? (whose piece is very similar to International Business Times page last night and includes Dr. Caplan's quotes)

because gawker was the first link and I was phone posting.

At least now, you are admitting that there may be some things of concern raised in the video; a slight change from your stance last night that it is just misrepresentation.

Nope. I was referring to the selling of body parts, my stance hasn't changed.

No point asking me about the methodology the group chose. I questioned if the authorities were informed first but maybe in American Society, it is better to garner Public attention first. Planned Parenthood are a very large Corporation with many influential members, advocates and benefactors.
According to the IBT last night, the Dr. Nuc...? at the centre of the case has gone "off the grid": twitter and FB pages cancelled (but her linkedin page remains open) and the President of the Corporation has already publicly defended her. Their PR machine went straight to work.

Of course their PR went to work, it's a PR issue. As of yet, there are no criminal charges nor evidence of any criminal activity.

hinault

lazybones32 wrote: »

Lifenews, source their news from other agencies and credit them. I wonder why you led your references with Gawker and then added the Guardian? (whose piece is very similar to International Business Times page last night and includes Dr. Caplan's quotes)

At least now, you are admitting that there may be some things of concern raised in the video; a slight change from your stance last night that it is just misrepresentation.

No point asking me about the methodology the group chose. I questioned if the authorities were informed first but maybe in American Society, it is better to garner Public attention first. Planned Parenthood are a very large Corporation with many influential members, advocates and benefactors.
According to the IBT last night, the Dr. Nuc...? at the centre of the case has gone "off the grid": twitter and FB pages cancelled (but her linkedin page remains open) and the President of the Corporation has already publicly defended her. Their PR machine went straight to work.

Recent history shows that going to the authorities first with evidence can be as fraught in America, as it is in Ireland.

The state authorities are often beholden to certain"interests". And their indebtedness to those "interests" often determine whether or not an investigation is allowed to take place and whether or not charges are made.

Of course going to the media first with evidence runs the serious risk of prejudicing future trials of the accused.

No doubt Planned Parenthood are working on such a strategy.

lazygal

Does preserving the sanctity of life mean compulsory donation of organs, bone marrow and blood from the living and the dead should be in place so the born can live?

am946745

SW wrote: »

Yes. And I see no definitive evidence of selling of body parts.

I saw mention of the $30-$100 value but that was explained as probably transport/storage costs in my link.

Hold on a second... They are PAYING for free abortions and using the dead babies organs and body parts and SELLING those parts.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America president Cecile Richards earns 3 times as much as President Obama.

Your biased pro-choice arguments don't stand up.

They are commercial entity making money by killing children.

K4t

am946745 wrote: »

Your biased pro-choice arguments don't stand up.

The hell does pro choice have to do with organ selling? Your desire to link the two as a means to strengthen the pro life agenda says more about you than any stories you link to. This forum really is a parody.

am946745

K4t wrote: »

The hell does pro choice have to do with organ selling? Your desire to link the two as a means to strengthen the pro life agenda says more about you than any stories you link to. This forum really is a parody.

Because SW has consistently sided with the Pro-choice side on several threads.

What has pro-choice got to do with organ selling? Well once you intentionally kill the child the next step follows quickly. Planned Parenthood are still defending their actions.

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

Hold on a second... They are PAYING for free abortions and using the dead babies organs and body parts and SELLING those parts.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America president Cecile Richards earns 3 times as much as President Obama.

They are commercial entity making money by killing children.

Where's your evidence they're selling body parts? The video certainly doesn't support the claim of illegal sales by Planned Parenthood.

K4t

am946745 wrote: »

Because SW has consistently sided with the Pro-choice side on several threads.

Which merely proves that SW has sense, and of course the ability to form their own opinion on different matters without being subject to Christian doctrine.

What has pro-choice got to do with organ selling? Well once you intentionally kill the child the next step follows quickly. Planned Parenthood are still defending their actions.

No - The answer is it has nothing to do with organ selling; just as pro life has nothing to do with organ selling. Reading your posts is more sickening than anything you link to.

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

What has pro-choice got to do with organ selling? Well once you intentionally kill the child the next step follows quickly. Planned Parenthood are still defending their actions.

Wrong. Planned Parenthood have denied any selling of body parts.

lazybones32

lazygal wrote: »

Does preserving the sanctity of life mean compulsory donation of organs, bone marrow and blood from the living and the dead should be in place so the born can live?

If it's "compulsory" it's not a donation.
A mother donating her dead child's organs isn't in the same boat as a mother terminating her child, but doing it in such a fashion that the organs are viable for 'sale'.

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

And yet no comments on using lifenews as a source. Pots and kettles.

LifeNews.com is an independent news agency devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community.
Do you propose that pro-life related stories only be supplied from media sources that you personally approve of?

Delirium

lazybones32 wrote: »

LifeNews.com is an independent news agency devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community.
Do you propose that pro-life related stories only be supplied from media sources that you personally approve of?

Well usually it's a good start to find news sites that have some level of impartiality.

Using a story from a site that opposes abortion to highlight alledged improprieties of an abortion service provider is not really sensible.

Use actual news sites rather than a pro-life group blog.

am946745

SW wrote: »

Wrong. Planned Parenthood have denied any selling of body parts.

Yeah right.. All the work for free.. Right.

They admit they use ultrasound to avoid damaging the organs they want to harvest from the dead babies.

Planned parenthood:- we have been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I'm not going to crush that part.

Where is your critical thinking here? They haven't denied what the person is saying in the video is false. She is their employee. They are commercial entity that pays their CEO over 600K.

They are making money from abortions. They are harvesting organs from Children they Kill.

You can't hide from the facts.

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

Yeah right.. All the work for free.. Right.

how about dropping the sarcasm and discussing the topic?

They admit they use ultrasound to avoid damaging the organs they want to harvest from the dead babies.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean any illegal is happening.

Where is your critical thinking here? They haven't denied what the person is saying in the video is false. She is their employee. They are commercial entity that pays their CEO over 600K.

Huh? I've posted a link from the Guardian where Planned Parenthood have stated explicity that there is no truth to the claims.

They are making money from abortions. They are harvesting organs from Children they Kill.

Yes, where the woman agrees to donate the organs.

You can't hide from the facts.

I'm not, I'm disputing the supported claim of illegal sales of body parts.

am946745

SW wrote: »

Huh? I've posted a link from the Guardian where Planned Parenthood have stated explicity that there is no truth to the claims.

So planned parenthood have come out said the person who said those words that I quoted was lying?

am946745

SW wrote: »

Yes, where the woman agrees to donate the organs.

and in the process did not have to pay for the abortion...

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

So planned parenthood have come out said the person who said those words that I quoted was lying?

As posted earlier in thread:

“In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different,” Planned Parenthood’s vice president for communications, Eric Ferrero, said in a statement.


“There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood,” the statement said. “In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.”

Planned Parenthood called the allegation “false” and said such claims have been “put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades”.


The organization blamed the video on a “well funded group established for the purpose of damaging” the abortion provider’s reputation.

Source

am946745

SW wrote: »

As posted earlier in thread:

Source

Hmmm. So they have said the person speaking in the video is lying. Correct?

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

and in the process did not have to pay for the abortion...

what are you on about?

am946745

SW wrote: »

what are you on about?

The Tissue and organs that were harvested from the dead babies were not done after a "standard" abortion. The consent was given prior to the abortion. The procedure was adjusted accordingly, the women did not have to pay of the procedure. (as it took slightly longer, with ultrasound etc.. )

I'm not inventing this, it is what they have admitted and you are defending it seems.

I mean we have animal rights people up in harms about killing for leather.. or testing on animals.. And here we have people killing healthy children and using their organs.. to MAKE A PROFIT!!!.

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

The Tissue and organs that were harvested from the dead babies were not done after a "standard" abortion. The consent was given prior to the abortion. The procedure was adjusted accordingly, the women did not have to pay of the procedure. (as it took slightly longer, with ultrasound etc.. )

I'm not inventing this, it is what they have admitted and you are defending it seems.

I mean we have animal rights people up in harms about killing for leather.. or testing on animals.. And here we have people killing healthy children and using their organs.. to MAKE A PROFIT!!!.

I've accepted (and even provided links to support it) that abortions were carried out in a non-standard way to avoid damaging any organs. So I've no idea how you think I'm defending it.

You've yet to provide any evidence of illegal sales of body tissue. Would you care to do so seeing as you've made the claim once again?

lazybones32

SW wrote: »

Well usually it's a good start to find news sites that have some level of impartiality.

Using a story from a site that opposes abortion to highlight alledged improprieties of an abortion service provider is not really sensible.

Use actual news sites rather than a pro-life group blog.

Therefore,
Independent.ie is an Irish newspaper; therefore it is not impartial when reporting matters concerning Ireland. It must be rejected as an impartial source for Irish matters.
Munsterrugby.ie is the website for Munster Rugby; it cannot be impartial when it supplies news about Munster rugby. It must be rejected as an impartial source for Munster rugby matters.
Do I need to keep typing for you to understand the flaws in your reasoning?


The original link was to Lifenews; you yourself chose a Guardian source this morning and I could have supplied an IBT source last night.
Has any of the 'impartial' sources disproved or denounced the story as a fabrication? If you choose not to believe something based on the website it appears on, that's your business. Don't try to censor everyone else in the process...'only the Guardian is reputable', 'only Gawker is reputable...twenty-three million fashionistas can't be wrong!'

But feel free to supply us with a list of credible and acceptable sources.