Planned Parenthood Director caught on tape selling aborted baby parts

I was just following the protocol logic established by many of the liberals on this board regarding any opinion with which they disagree.

 

You are being disingenuous. You know full well that Planned Parenthood is not trying to do that.

 

Please provide examples

 

I get that you're trying go on a lark--

But the rate has been near constant since the 1930s--your statement is not only absurd because you painted it as such: it also betrays a fundamental misreasoning on the topic at hand. Planned Parenthood is extending nothing.

There's a few boundaries in this equation. One changed after 1973 (induced abortion) but it is a local maxima for tissues derived from lawful induced abortions limited to the age of viability. The other (human birth) has yet to do so and will probably not do so for quite a while as a near immutable global maxima (until we redefine birth to accomodate sentinent artificial intelligence ).

Legal and medical definitions do serve a purpose, as it turns out.

Biologically speaking, there are also reasons for a preference for fetal tissue in cutting-edge research that make this statement even more non-sensical.

I'm reminded of one of my favorite Turing quotes:

“Science is a differential equation. Religion is a boundary condition.”

 

Tissue donation =/= "sale of baby organs"

Too bad your ideology blinds you to the definition of words.

 

I have a question for the anti-abortion crowd...are you also against organ donation? Brain dead humans are kept alive on machines until their organs are harvested, at which time the human dies. Is this not a horror as well?

I am trying to get the anti-abortion crazies to also rail against organ donation. Let's marginalize these people as much as we can. All you have to do is read thumbs' comments on this thread to understand the type of mentality we are dealing with here.

 

a person chooses to be an organ donor...............................

also calling people crazy isn't nearly as compelling as you think it is. Neither is making an awful comparison.

 

To be fair, I was the one saying abortion should be allowed until they're adults. Maybe I was a bit sarcastic, but honestly, a fetus is a parasite. If the mother wants or needs it removed, it should be allowed. There was a study I read recently that indicated that most young women having abortions just put off having children. Its not that they're doing it for birth control, but rather that they did it because their circumstances weren't conducive to handling the responsibility of raising a child, and that's what the anti-abortion folks should understand. Their opinion seems to be based on the idea that women can't make their own choice in this regard. They would rather force a woman to bring a child into the world that they can't responsibly raise. For all of their talk of family and conservative values, they're basically advocating a system that puts certain children at a disadvantage in life because the state wouldn't allow the mother to make her own decision about her ability to raise a child under her present circumstances.

 

My point is the death of the person donating organs. One minute they are alive, then doctors remove the heart, lungs, kidneys etc, and the person is then dead. If I were an anti-abortion type, I might accuse the doctor of murdering the patient, regardless of the choice made by the donor.

I don't think it's an awful comparison at all...and I will continue to label people who post stuff like thumbs has in this thread as crazy.

 

All of these questions would be answered by a cursory glance at the laws around fetal tissue transport. You're probably shoving in the wrong search terms like "funding of a corporation" -- non-profit restricted by law to non-valuable consideration during fetal tissue transport -- traffics in baby organs -- lawfully fills out its duties with consent.

It is touching to see you finally admit that a corporation with for-profit motives can be more predatory and more morally gauche though.

http://congressionalresearch.com/RL31147/document.php

Federal and State Regulation of Research Involving
Human Fetal Tissue

Summary
This report discusses federal and state regulation of research involving human
fetal tissue. The NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 and the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 regulate the federal funding of fetal research and fetal tissue transplantation. The National Organ Transplant Act restricts the receipt or transfer of fetal organs. Additional fetal research statutes exist at the state level, but have been subject to challenges in federal courts. In general, the courts have found the state fetal research statutes to be unconstitutionally vague.

it's like as if there was a whole body of law that existed outside of the scandal-raising that governed the field that has never been referred to except to grab soundbytes. strange.

 

Not quite so true when they're dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Anatomical_Gift_Act

Non-profit consent to a medical gifting by next of kin is a whole lot different from for-profit sales of organs with profit accruing to distant family members for very exact legal and logical reasons.

If these sensationalists have concrete evidence of the latter, they should produce it in a court and shut down PP with the law. Otherwise, they'll have to advance forceful legal arguments to change the law. I haven't seen anything of the latter yet and no amount of "investigations" will change that if PP hasn't broken the law and nobody advances why mothers who accrue no profits for lawful, consensual abortions can't have the same rights as next of kin traditionally do with organ donations for medical reasons for the dead.

Well, unless you want to ban the lawful abortion system that has produced a new low in abortion rates, crushing of infant mortality, and less mortality and criminalization for medical service providers and women which I think is what this debate is REALLY trying to drive at.

 

If sensationalism strips us of reasoning skills, I propose a very swift reading of A Modest Proposal for everybody in this thread.

You'll be happy to know that women who are more informed about their medical choices and family planning options are not only having less unwanted pregancies, they're having less abortions, less infants are dying, and less mothers are being harmed.

That's thanks to a lot of the work PP does when it's not selling organs for profit on the black market.

 

except the patient asked or it.......................

 

If conservatives had their way, they wouldn't be able to choose to have an abortion. So basically, the allegedly small government conservatives want to force women to have children when their life's circumstances aren't conducive to that. I guess they want to keep the welfare machine greased. That, or more likely they just talk a lot about freedom and liberty when all they want to do is impose their morality on everybody.

(Same goes for the so-called liberals that want to fix prices, and control the economy. They find themselves so omnipotent that centuries of economic interventionism blowing up in the faces of those in power aren't enough to persuade them otherwise. To them, people are just too stupid to run things without big brother's guiding hand. Its really a shame that political discourse boils down to a choice between being ruled by idiots who think their morals make them superior, or idiots who think they're smart enough to run everything.)

 

Why is it that the basics have to be explained to every single liberal? Conservatives believe in individual freedom unless it interferes with individual rights (you are thinking of an anarchist not a conservative). Killing someone violates the most primary of rights. the right to exist (all other rights are meaningless without this right). You don't understand conservatism and you should not try to explain their positions. It's not conducive to good conversation to misrepresent the other side's position.

 

Read the article. This is the quote.