Planned Parenthood Director caught on tape selling aborted baby parts

Wasn't there a story just recently here in Houston where a doctor got caught on tape making fun of his patient's penis size or something during a colonoscopy?

 

With continued scientific advancement and understanding, history will not look back kindly on the abortion era.

 

Yea I know. In such a field, you got to be objective as possible. Talking to patient is a completely different story though and much need to be improve there.

 

So now it's the biotech as for profit. I see that you backed away from PP as for profit. You want to regulate biotech now?

By that definition, nature has murdered more in the womb.

 

Perhaps. But if and until then, the current science said otherwise. Policy can't be faith based but shouldn't be completely blind to faith. Thus, there is a middle ground here and I think we largely are in that middle area. Either extreme is not helpful. The best and most effective way so far is education and other tools to lower the chance of abortion. This fight of making abortion illegal isn't effective to lower the # of abortion. If you really care about aborting babies, rethink your strategy. If you care more about punishment over lowering the # of abortion, than continue pushing the current agenda.

 

This.

 

That's what makes it so funny! They're totally serious!

 

are you talking about now?

because I think history will look kindly on a historically low abortion rate, the absolute destruction of the infant mortality rate, and a historically low rate of mothers dying from abortion.

pre Roe v. Wade will be regarded just as Prohibition was. The two have been about as effective--and they are both abberations from common law traditions.

 

the reason why is that most fetuses will not have fully developed organs. 88% of abortions happen in the first trimester. It's only after that key organs have developed. It will take many more months for a nervous system, senses, breathing, functional lungs, sweat glands, functioning immune system, bone marrow and more to be developed.

Which again, is why fetuses in the womb are different from babies outside of it, biologically.

The law and science reflect this difference because it exists. The LEGAL issue you're talking about that this group is trying to wrangle is the following: "42 U.S. Code § 289g–2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue".

Now, normally I suppose a lot of abortion talk can be all moral pandering and "think of teh babies" but if you're going to advance pseudo-legal arguments, you need to own them. The media has. If you don't want to debate about the ethics of human fetal tissue transport, a clearly defined area of the law and science that existed long before this video had, then make up your own terms for your own make-believe debate. Like, I think fetal kalamazoos should not be used for medicine.

The concept that a fetus has semi-developing organs is completely uncontroversial. So is the scientific fact that fetal tissue (or if you want to pander to dramatic inaccuracy semi-developed fetal organs) is more effective for medical treatment.

Your "uncomfortable questions" would hopefully lead to research on the topic and not superficial glazing. I guess one of the things this topic has brought up is how profoundly different America would be without top-tier medical research driven by a system that has produced a historic low in abortion rate, maternal deaths from abortion, and infant mortality.

But of course, like all good lawmakers, we must punish women and medical providers criminally because that would be morally upright and my conscience could rest at ease. or strip funding from a NFP that does a whole lot of good outside of providing lawful medical services.

 

Fetal term is a more general term and is the legal term... Just give it up. The "group" that produced the video has been proven to not be independent and a sham, the video released has proven to have been unethically heavily edited, and the unedited video is quite different and actually disproves the claim of profits.

Last, the woman has to sign consent for tissue donation and it does have medical purposes. Would you rather them just dispose of it?

I strongly suspect you were anti stem cell as well.... I want to thank Neanderthals that kept us from dominating the stem cell technology with absurd laws. Thanks... When you have a loved one die of a disease, just remember there was more that could have been done in many cases.

 

You and your ilk loose credibility with statements like this inside your argument. This is a very complex issue that most will not allow others to make up their mind on how they should feel. 'Experimenting' aka research in today's language with those considered one step below humans and their fetuses was also rationalized by some quite easily in 1940's Germany. What does history say about them? Just a thought as defense appears to come quite easily for you and others of like mind on the topic.

 

How does history judge the development of the polio vaccine? Or Hep A/B, MMR, rabies, tetanus, etc? All of these were developed using fetal tissue. There is nothing particularly unusual or controversial about what Planned Parenthood does - its been done for decades and is used pretty widely across the entire medical community. Fetal tissue research has been used to rid the world of disease and saved tens of millions of lives. Outside of a tiny minority, I don't think anyone has a problem with the development or existence of those vaccines.

 

I find it ironic that was your trigger considering the bulk of argumentation on this topic--

The pro-life side is always on its moral high horse and this has never been more prevalant as in threads like this where the scientific and legal argument have been vacated. Comparing me to a Nazi won't change the facts on the ground. Neither will it change anybody's desire to criminalize fetal tissue transport for non-profit research purposes or implied business purposes with nothing more than Nazi comparisions, dubious terminology, conflicting evidence, and that same moral high horse. What did you think the consequences of this sting would be?

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

What will history say about Jonas Salk, as an aside?

Dr. Mengele in the flesh.

I don't think history will think anything negative against a system that 1) ultimately reduced the abortion rate, 2) reduced infant mortality and 3) saved countless mothers from gruesome deaths.

It's easy to say "I don't like X". It's much harder to realize what outcomes come from policy and defined ethics. This thread has been filled with the former. If I have to take a few Nazi comparisions to get to the latter, so be it.

Medical research that proceeds from tissue donation from lawful, consensual abortions as opposed to back-alley coat-hangers with a well-measured system of ethical and legal balances and checks != non-consensual social darwinism in Nazi Germany perpetuated by a tyrannical genocidal regime. Period. Anybody who stretches to make the comparision might as well be comparing apples and spaceships. I don't think I'll change how anybody "feels" about this topic (especially since feeling is the last refuge of those who reason through subjective morality) but if you're going to talk facts, well, there they are.

 

Not defending or opposing what's happening here. NS presents good arguments. Your example too.

Merely defending the right to oppose based on 'other' grounds. Carry on.

 

They're technically parasites until they're adults. I support abortion all the way up to adulthood. Damned moochers.

 

Considering abortionist attitudes toward life, you're probably correct. If Planned Parenthood projects its philosophy out over the next half century, parents will be allowed to slaughter their children for parts up until the children reach age 12. After that, the little moochers can prostitute themselves out to earn money for food, clothing, shelter and school.

For the CometsWin crazies of the board, I'll put this in for you.

 

I think it's ridiculous to compare a 12 year old child to a fetus. Just because CometsWin disagrees with you doesn't make him crazy either.

 

When all else fails, usel the old slippery slope argument and throw in as much apocalyptic predictions as you can without having to back it up with any kind of precedence.

 

Goodness. Did you not see the that I especially noted.

I'm just speculating that, at the rate Planned Parenthood is extending the term in which a baby can be slaughtered (harvested), in 50 years they will be up to 12 years old.