Selling body parts for profit

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by newtothegame

You are really on a roll!!! Now all "conservatives" are like Boxcar??? Lmao
This gets better with each reply!!!

Sorry, please point out to me where my statement included the word "ALL"
Many, yes. There a lot of posts here about lazy immigrants and promiscuous women on welfare.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by TJDave

That is absurd. Mengele performed torturous experimentation on unwilling captives. In this country, most abortion procedures are legal... and all voluntary.

Not by the babies.
And do you know HOW a baby is aborted?
Very Mengelese things.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by Tom

Not by the babies.
And do you know HOW a baby is aborted?
Very Mengelese things.

Babies are not aborted.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Believe it or not, Tom's not too far off...

If this is true...then how terrible must it be that we citizens are just sitting idly by as this "monstrosity" is going on? Why don't we all take to the streets...and finally put an end to this Mengele-esque outrage? We too must share the blame then, just as those German citizens must, who turned a blind eye to the atrocities that were taking place around them.

This is an "extension of Mengele"...and we are just sitting here, typing away on our keyboards?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by TJDave

That is absurd. Mengele performed torturous experimentation on unwilling captives. In this country, most abortion procedures are legal... and all voluntary.

Are you sure you want to go down this road?

Eugenics and Birth Control
Margaret Sanger's birth control movement and quest for the Pill intersected the rise of the eugenics movement in America. At a time when birth control was still not publicly accepted in American society, some eugenicists believed birth control was a useful tool for curbing procreation among the "weak." In the 1920s and 30s, Sanger calculated that the success of the eugenics idea gave her own movement legitimacy, and tried to ally her cause with the movement. Eugenics was a dominant theme at her birth control conferences, and Sanger spoke publicly of the need to put an end to breeding by the unfit. In 1920 Sanger publicly stated that "birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit [and] of preventing the birth of defectives." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/pe..._eugenics.html

+

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/articl...ia-2549771.php

=

Tom's not too far off

It certainly does NOT equal absurd, as you put it TJDave.

[TJDave]

Planned Parenthood's services are voluntary... Mengele's were not.

End of story. End of road.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Planned Parenthood provides organs to legitimate bio medical companies which those companies use to conduct studies that could and do lead to saving lives in the future.

It doesn't provide them, it sells them. Under law, they are allowed to only be compensated for their actual costs of preparation and transportation. They charge more than that, so they are breaking the law.

A new video just released shows a PP representative dickering over the price of the body parts. You don't dicker over price if you are only recovering your costs. You know what those are, and that is what you charge.

They also use extraordinary methods to "harvest" the "tissue" to meet the needs of the buyer. That is also illegal.

In the new video, the PP representation offers to use a “less crunchy technique” to get more intact body parts.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/2...han-the-first/

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Planned Parenthood's services are voluntary... Mengele's were not.

End of story. End of road.

Yes, I guess it's as simple as that. The principles upon which Planned Parenthood were founded (along with their founder) bear no scrutiny and are above reproach. Nothing should be called into question.

It's all just pure goodness.

I never said the two were equal. I said Tom wasn't too far off.

I stand by my assessment. There are connections that MOST people aren't even aware exist. MOST people don't even know the movement the Nazi's based their horror on was CULTIVATED in CALIFORNIA.

You read this and tell me there is no connections between PP, it's founder, and Nazi Germany:

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little-known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the pseudoscience aimed at "improving" the human race. In its extreme, racist form, this meant wiping away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in 27 states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.
.
.
.
During the Reich's early years, eugenicists across America welcomed Hitler's plans as the logical fulfillment of their own decades of research and effort. California eugenicists republished Nazi propaganda for American consumption. They also arranged for Nazi scientific exhibits, such as an August 1934 display at the L.A. County Museum, for the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association. http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/articl...ia-2549771.php

[TJDave]

This is quite a contrast to the idea of Sanger as a champion of women's rights, promoter of birth control, and medical pioneer. In fact, the Christian lies about Sanger are so pervaisive that many people who are not even involved with the Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist movement believe them. This is because of a very-well financed campaign by Evangelical Fundamentalist groups to spread these lies about Sanger, through the promotion of books, websites, and other media. All of these lies stem from a series of books written by anti-abortion activist George Grant. Grant wrote several books about Sanger and Planned parenthood that are full of invented facts, misquotes from books, articles, and letters by Sanger, and falseley-attributed quotes. The books are literally a colleection of clever lies that have numerous footnotes, to make them appear to be legitimate.

http://fundamentalistdeceit.blogspot...et-sanger.html

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by TJDave

This is quite a contrast to the idea of Sanger as a champion of women's rights, promoter of birth control, and medical pioneer. In fact, the Christian lies about Sanger are so pervaisive that many people who are not even involved with the Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist movement believe them. This is because of a very-well financed campaign by Evangelical Fundamentalist groups to spread these lies about Sanger, through the promotion of books, websites, and other media. All of these lies stem from a series of books written by anti-abortion activist George Grant. Grant wrote several books about Sanger and Planned parenthood that are full of invented facts, misquotes from books, articles, and letters by Sanger, and falseley-attributed quotes. The books are literally a colleection of clever lies that have numerous footnotes, to make them appear to be legitimate.

http://fundamentalistdeceit.blogspot...et-sanger.html

What I posted came from an article in sfgate and the website of pbs.

Hardly bastions of the Evangelical Christian movement. Is this your rebuttal?

I'm more than underwhelmed.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I'm more than underwhelmed.

Believe what you choose, as will I.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

You seem to be missing the point.

I am in FAVOR of making objective moral judgements, including about my own behavior. The idea is to create superior standards for behavior so you have a better chance of getting superior result, but without making other choices illegal. I am in favor of encouraging behavior and ideas that I choose to ignore.
I can't comment on that because I have no idea what all that mumbo jumbo means.

Defining those standards is what gets everyone into trouble. The left hates religion and God. So that makes it tough. But you can also define them by the results various options produce for society.
Mike (PA) is discouraging inflammatory rhetoric. But, I look at the second sentence in your paragraph above and I have to think; that is a really idiotic statement.

Now maybe my idea of religion and God differs from yours, but I am a regular churchgoer, active in the music ministry at my church-that means I sing in the choir. I know many liberals who attend church, or the synagogue regularly. I also know some conservatives who never go to church. So spare me your blanking self righteousness.

By PP being either agnostic or actually encouraging things like late term abortion, giving abortion pills to minors, not notifying parents of minors etc.. it is encouraging behavior that even an atheist should be able to discern as being a bad idea.
What do you mean by "Encouraging late term abortions?" Does PP put ads in magazines or on TV touting the "benefits" of late term abortion. Or do they present all the options to women who seek them out?

The matter of notifying parents of minors is a difficult one, but I would balance the rights of the parents with the rights of the minor. The child knows how the parents will react. If the parents have been supportive throughout the child's life, she will inform them before even coming to Planned Parenthood. If they have been judgmental and severe, Planned Parenthood may be the only option left to the young girl.

The idea is to avoid later abortions because you get into even more difficult questions about life.
Late term abortion should never be because the mother suddenly decides she is not capable of caring for the baby. That decision should be made as soon as possible.

But there are circumstances which do not show themselves until later in the pregnancy wherein the baby will be born only to die quickly. Or the baby will die in a few days, but never be a thinking human being.

This morning they were talking on the radio about a condition called Extreme Hydroencephalacy. That may not be the exact term and I know I did not spell it correctly. It is a condition in which the brain does not develop at all.

The baby will die either at birth or shortly thereafter. Why would you want to make the mother go through the physical and emotional pain of giving birth to such a baby.

There are also circumstances in which giving birth can endanger the life and health of the mother. Sometimes giving birth to a damaged fetus can cause injuries which prevent the woman from having children afterwards. If we know the fetus is non viable, why should we not do everything we can to allow that woman to have more, healthy children.

The idea is to discourage unwanted pregnancies so abortions are not even an issue.
No, the idea is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, not by some pie in the sky, unrealistic reliance on abstinence, but by access to methods of contraception and education of Safe Sex. Which is not to say that abstinence should not be strongly encouraged. It should not be relied on to the exclusion of more practical practices.
The idea is to notify parents so they can also help their children make correct health and life decisions.
That's fine if the parents are actually concerned about their daughter's welfare and not some dogma. There are plenty of stories out there about children who suffered and died because of some religious belief.



The idea is to encourage adoption services so there are superior alternatives to abortions.

If this was such an obvious solution, why was it not done already.

[Clocker]

A number of prominent doctors, including Ben Johnson, say that fetal tissue is not needed for research.

“There’s nothing that can’t be done without fetal tissue,” Carson said on Fox News Channel’s The Kelly File. “It’s been over-promised what the benefits of fetal research would be. And very much under-delivered.”

Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians (ACPEDS), actually goes one step further.

“Let’s be clear: selling organs of aborted babies for fetal tissue research is unnecessary and prolongs human suffering,” she tells Breitbart News. “Fetal tissue research, like embryonic stem cell research, has failed to produce a single successful treatment for human disease, and both have been associated with significant side-effects including overgrowth of cells and the need for immunosuppressive chemotherapy.”

And there are questions about the ethics of what PP is doing.

Arthur Caplan, director of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, told the Times he believes Planned Parenthood faces serious challenges in the realm of ethics regarding senior medical director Nucatola’s graphic description of the organization’s practices. “You cannot, must not, alter how or when you do an abortion simply to obtain tissues you want,” Caplan said. “Basically, the only concern is the health and safety of the mother.”

Additionally, he observed the appearance of potential conflicts of interest for the organization is considerable when it accepts fees for fetal tissue obtained from abortions performed in their facilities.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ific-progress/

[newtothegame]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Sorry, please point out to me where my statement included the word "ALL"
Many, yes. There a lot of posts here about lazy immigrants and promiscuous women on welfare.

Your post #45 "Unlike conservatives, who make moral judgments for everyone-except themselves, Planned Parenthood does not make judgments".

Notice you didn't say all nor did you use "some" so its read as all inclusive....

Now, you try and say "many"........

Lmao

and the hits just keep coming from you......passing judgments on others as you say "conservatives" do..... lmao

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by mostpost

If this was such an obvious solution, why was it not done already.

This is the fundamental issue.

While I would fight for the freedom of people (including myself) to do things that are not in the best interests of the people doing them or in the best interests of our society as a whole, I am willing to recognize that some of life's potential choices should be considered superior because they produce superior results. And since some produce superior results, they should be encouraged and the poor ones discouraged.

A lot of things that are obvious to many people are not done because the left rejects much of the morality (especially sexual) that has its traditions in religion. The fact that stats can measure these outcomes in non religious terms is disregarded or attacked.

I'd describe it this way.

In its effort to protect liberties, the left veers off the deep end and winds up actually encouraging the immoral and poor life choices that take our society down a shithole. I don't care what people do. I've done some of the same things. Just don't glorify it, normalize it, or hold it up as morally equal or superior to choices that produce superior results.

That's why I call Hollywood a den of demons.

That's why I call Planned Parenthood the demon seed coming from that culture. You should actually read their documentation. They are morally agnostic on everything that is legal and fighting to expand down the wrong path.