Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Do you agree with this sentiment?

Do you agree with this sentiment? (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2015, 02:48 PM
 
So I'll come out and state that I imagine this page is is about as biased as the left wing gets, but of course it doesn't go as far as faking video evidence and telling outright lies in order to get its way.

Anti-Abortion Group Admits to Falsifying Latest Video
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2015, 02:58 PM
 
I'm not seeing any actual admissions, nor any proof at all, for that matter.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2015, 03:54 PM
 
45/47
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2015, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I'm not questioning that by expense, abortions make up a much larger percentage of their income that 3%, nor do I argue PP decides to use the most self-serving metric they can find.

Self-serving isn't lying.

If you take the numbers 1, 2, and 1,000,000. The median is 2 and the mean is close to 500,000. There's a 250,000% difference in these two numbers describing the same set of data. Neither is a lie.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2015, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
So, Planned Parenthood is the only group capable of providing theses services and accepts Medicaid? The second graphic I posted shows that there 20 comprehensive health care clinics for every PP. (13,550 to 665) Despite the claim abortion is 3% of what PP does, it is the the leader in abortions performed. (>300k a year)
You know, I need to apologize, both to you and the creator I accused of distorting the facts. I read the second graphic as being about mammograms.

However, I'm not really sure the graphic succeds in proving it's intended point. Just like you ask me to acknowledge (and I do) PP is being self serving with their 3% statistic, this graphic is being self-serving by implying these services are needed in equal amounts throughout the entire country. The PP clinics are clustered in population centers.

Allow me a quick anecdote. When I met my ex, she was getting her cheap gynecological services at PP. I went with her a few times because in the beginning of relationships you do dull shit just to get to hang out with the person.

The place was frigging packed. These weren't people getting abortions, either. That part of the clinic is sectioned off.

For a place where cutting services isn't supposed to have an impact, they sure were distributing a bunch of services, and one must assume there's a reason for that.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2015, 07:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I'm not seeing any actual admissions, nor any proof at all, for that matter.
No, neither am I actually but these videos from an extremely biased source with no oversight or independent verification have led to numerous investigations into PP across your country and by all accounts not one has yet found any evidence of any wrongdoing. The source of the videos I believe is now under investigation themselves for creating a sham corporation and using fake IDs to gain access to film in PP clinics.

I'm sure there is some deeply unpleasant footage in these videos, but if you ever watched any of the videos about where Chicken McNuggets come from you could also describe that as disturbing or upsetting but it isn't anything illegal.

Its unfortunate to see so many people get sucked in pretty easily by these vids without much in the way of scrutiny or skepticism.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2015, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Yeah, but not an unreasonable one. Wouldn't you agree?
I depends on how you perceive the issue. A few perspectives:

A. PP instructs their doctors to do this
B. All abortion clinics do this
C. No one told him to do this

I'm not sure why someone would assume PP wants doctors doing this, unless you have a view of them that is downright villainous.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2015, 10:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
So, Planned Parenthood is the only group capable of providing theses services and accepts Medicaid?
I honestly don't know, but their name has become synonymous with such. If there's another widespread organization that can take their place, then a there should be a sponsored campaign to raise awareness. If there is no common alternative, there will be some bumps on the road then.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2015, 10:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
So I'll come out and state that I imagine this page is is about as biased as the left wing gets, but of course it doesn't go as far as faking video evidence and telling outright lies in order to get its way.

Anti-Abortion Group Admits to Falsifying Latest Video
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I'm not seeing any actual admissions, nor any proof at all, for that matter.
There is a note on the YouTube creditting the image to the parents. The image is there to show what a baby looks like at the stage the procurement tech was describing


Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
No, neither am I actually but these videos from an extremely biased source with no oversight or independent verification have led to numerous investigations into PP across your country and by all accounts not one has yet found any evidence of any wrongdoing. The source of the videos I believe is now under investigation themselves for creating a sham corporation and using fake IDs to gain access to film in PP clinics.

I'm sure there is some deeply unpleasant footage in these videos, but if you ever watched any of the videos about where Chicken McNuggets come from you could also describe that as disturbing or upsetting but it isn't anything illegal.

Its unfortunate to see so many people get sucked in pretty easily by these vids without much in the way of scrutiny or skepticism.
The unedited videos are on YouTube for everyone to view. People refuse to watch them because it shows these are children and not blobs of cells or any of the other terms used by abortion supporters. The next video will shpw Stem Express CEO admitting SE receives intact babies.
The pro abortion crowd was fine with NARAL going undercover to pregnancy centers. BTW the states that "found no wrongdoing" are not the ones in the videos.
MEDIA ADVISORY

Today, the TRO preventing the release of footage from an undercover business dinner meeting with the top leadership of StemExpress, Planned Parenthood’s recent partner for selling baby parts, was dissolved. The following are several significant quotes from the transcript of that conversation. The video, full conversation footage, and transcript will be published shortly:

1) StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer admits that StemExpress gets intact fetuses from the abortion clinics they work with shipped to their laboratory. “Case” is the clinical term for an individual abortion (cross reference with Planned Parenthood Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola’s discussion of “this case, that case” in lunch video), so an “intact case” means an “intact abortion.”:
The use of "fetacide" will render organs useless. The "intact cases" were born alive and allowed to die. This is what Gosnell was convicted of.
( Last edited by Chongo; Aug 24, 2015 at 11:09 AM. )
45/47
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2015, 04:39 PM
 
Where's the homepage for the group who put out the videos?

I'm noting a disparity between what people say they're complaining about vs. what the media is claiming the complaint is.

I don't really want to watch the videos. I want like, a press release or something.

IOW, I want their statement of what the videos are demonstrating.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2015, 04:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Where's the homepage for the group who put out the videos?

I'm noting a disparity between what people say they're complaining about vs. what the media is claiming the complaint is.

I don't really want to watch the videos. I want like, a press release or something.

IOW, I want their statement of what the videos are demonstrating.
The Center for Medical Progress
The Center for Medical Progress- YouTube
45/47
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2015, 04:56 PM
 
Press release on dissolving the TRO:
Preview Quotes from Video of Planned Parenthood Baby Parts Partner StemExpress | The Center for Medical Progress
MEDIA ADVISORY

Today, the TRO preventing the release of footage from an undercover business dinner meeting with the top leadership of StemExpress, Planned Parenthood’s recent partner for selling baby parts, was dissolved. The following are several significant quotes from the transcript of that conversation. The video, full conversation footage, and transcript will be published shortly:
45/47
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2015, 08:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
So I'll come out and state that I imagine this page is is about as biased as the left wing gets, but of course it doesn't go as far as faking video evidence and telling outright lies in order to get its way.

Anti-Abortion Group Admits to Falsifying Latest Video
This isn't even LWMSM. This is planned parenthood's PR machine. Your link even takes you directly to a PP domain page.

Have you watched the videos yet?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2015, 08:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
No, neither am I actually but these videos from an extremely biased source with no oversight or independent verification have led to numerous investigations into PP across your country and by all accounts not one has yet found any evidence of any wrongdoing.
So are you claiming the videos are CGI? Paid actors? Or is it still just a blanket ad hominem attack for which you have no actual argument?

I'm sure there is some deeply unpleasant footage in these videos, but if you ever watched any of the videos about where Chicken McNuggets come from you could also describe that as disturbing or upsetting but it isn't anything illegal.
First of all, the videos do suggest PP violated three distinct federal laws. Second, are you really comparing parting out freshly aborted fetuses to making chicken nuggets? You seriously can't make this shit up.

Its unfortunate to see so many people get sucked in pretty easily by these vids without much in the way of scrutiny or skepticism.
Oh I'm definitely open to scrutinizing the videos. I'm also open to scrutinizing PP, something that seems to be strictly off the table for you.

Do you have anything other than continued ad hominem attacks and comparisons to McDonalds that you'd like to discuss? Have you even watched the videos yet?

Edited to add:
I think the question of bias has been definitively answered. Thanks Waragainstsleep, you made it easier than I thought it'd be.
( Last edited by Snow-i; Aug 24, 2015 at 08:43 PM. )
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2015, 08:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I depends on how you perceive the issue. A few perspectives:

A. PP instructs their doctors to do this
B. All abortion clinics do this
C. No one told him to do this
D. PP doesn't instruct anyone to do this, but also looks the other way while it's occurring. (IMO, most likely).
E. PP specifically instructs doctor's not to do this, but this one went rogue somehow (I feel like they'd have already proven this if it were true in the least, or at least put some distance between themselves and the doctors in question).

B is against federal law, C isn't mutually exclusive to the other options, and I'd find A hard to believe as a likely explanation given it's violation of three federal laws.


You know PP could put an end to this shit real quick by inviting an investigation and being completely transparent. That they're doubling down on their PR machine makes me think the political and financial hooks into the organization are greater than these incidents indicate.


I'm not sure why someone would assume PP wants doctors doing this, unless you have a view of them that is downright villainous.
I don't believe PP actively wants anyone doing this, but they haven't really created an environment that discourages or stops it either, from the looks of it. Much like Obama probably didn't want to lie about the ACA, but did so anyways because of the circumstance. Follow the $$, and in this case $$ for fetus parts (super fresh at that!).
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2015, 09:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
So are you claiming the videos are CGI? Paid actors? Or is it still just a blanket ad hominem attack for which you have no actual argument?
No, I'm saying that the most likely explanation is that the footage is of a fairly common procedure, which is is completely appropriate and legal but to those who aren't familiar with such procedures is very likely to be horrifying and upsetting. I'm saying that the videos will have been edited to focus on the upsetting and 'illegal-looking' parts and to try to incriminate staff by chopping their conversations around. It would not surprise me if the odd still or sequence from elsewhere had been inserted to enhance the desired effects.



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
First of all, the videos do suggest PP violated three distinct federal laws.
Which are?

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Second, are you really comparing parting out freshly aborted fetuses to making chicken nuggets? You seriously can't make this shit up.
Yes because I can draw reasonable comparisons like a grown up without giggling at the trivially irrelevant parts.
People eat processed meat every day. Its common. People who eat that processed meat are regularly put off when they see what is entailed in its production. So people who didn't know much about an everyday familiar thing are disgusted and put off when they see it up close. Its a sound comparison to draw, because I'm saying that abortions performed after several weeks are not pleasant procedures for anyone involved.
They involve dissecting a foetus which will have limbs and a face. But while you happily condemn the staff performing these procedures (because dissecting things with human faces is ickier than chemically re-absorbing cell clusters) as criminals involved in a country-wide conspiracy to murder, harvest and sell dead baby parts to big pharma, I recognise that these people perform a valuable service, often to vulnerable women and girls who have nowhere else to turn. I also imagine that many of these girls are spared the trauma of having to 'deliver' what you would term an intact foetus while conscious and fully aware, potentially without support or assistance.
I also expect that a percentage of them will have been made to wait until the procedure would be more traumatic for all involved by ass-backwards anti-choice laws designed to end-run around women's federally mandated rights by clueless men who have no business interfering.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Oh I'm definitely open to scrutinizing the videos. I'm also open to scrutinizing PP, something that seems to be strictly off the table for you.
I'll scrutinise anything when given a worthwhile reason to do so. If there was anything to these videos, the reputable news outlets would have more to say. Reuters and the BBC would be condemning PP. Obama and his government would be condemning them or at least the minority criminal elements that had been exposed working within PP. They are not. Because these videos were shot and edited by a crazy anti-choicer who has been chasing an obsessive personal vendetta against PP for at least a decade now, then released to and overblown by the ERWMCJ (Thats the Extreme Right Wing Media Circle Jerk because they love to copy and paste each others stories, presumably so they can blame whoever they pasted it from if they get sued).




Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Do you have anything other than continued ad hominem attacks and comparisons to McDonalds that you'd like to discuss? Have you even watched the videos yet?
Edited to add:
I think the question of bias has been definitively answered. Thanks Waragainstsleep, you made it easier than I thought it'd be.
I got into an argument with several anti-vac morons on FB the other day. They kept claiming they had posted reams of "evidence" in the form of quack-narrated Youtube videos. I didn't watch any of those either and I don't need to to know that they are total BS created by tin-foil hat wearing loons who don't know what the **** they are talking about. Even the interviewees with Dr. before their name or Phd after it.

So yes, I'm biased against sources that have no credibility whatsoever. I don't have the time to waste. Its the same reason I haven't started a thread here about pigs on the strength of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXVzpdv52Zo
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2015, 09:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
No, I'm saying that the most likely explanation is that the footage is of a fairly common procedure, which is is completely appropriate and legal but to those who aren't familiar with such procedures is very likely to be horrifying and upsetting. I'm saying that the videos will have been edited to focus on the upsetting and 'illegal-looking' parts and to try to incriminate staff by chopping their conversations around. It would not surprise me if the odd still or sequence from elsewhere had been inserted to enhance the desired effects.
Ok, fair enough. Have you watched them yet? (You keep dodging this question!)



Which are?
42 U.S.C. §289g-1
42 U.S.C. §274e
18 U.S.C. §1531


Yes because I can draw reasonable comparisons like a grown up without giggling at the trivially irrelevant parts.
It would help if you could demonstrate how any part of McDonald's chicken nuggets production are relevant and non trivial in comparison to the abortion/stem cell cultivation processes.

People eat processed meat every day. Its common. People who eat that processed meat are regularly put off when they see what is entailed in its production. So people who didn't know much about an everyday familiar thing are disgusted and put off when they see it up close. Its a sound comparison to draw, because I'm saying that abortions performed after several weeks are not pleasant procedures for anyone involved.
So all you got is "They're both gross?"
They involve dissecting a foetus which will have limbs and a face. But while you happily condemn the staff performing these procedures (because dissecting things with human faces is ickier than chemically re-absorbing cell clusters) as criminals involved in a country-wide conspiracy to murder, harvest and sell dead baby parts to big pharma, I recognise that these people perform a valuable service, often to vulnerable women and girls who have nowhere else to turn.
I don't deny the value in serves PP renders. I am pro-choice and pro-education, after all. However, if you're going to convince me that PP is worthy of our tax-dollars you're going to have to put in some proactive controls prevent violation of the laws already on the books.

I also imagine that many of these girls are spared the trauma of having to 'deliver' what you would term an intact foetus while conscious and fully aware, potentially without support or assistance.
Can you quit it with the straw men and ad hominem attacks? I've never termed anything the sort, and you're putting words in my mouth here (that are way, way off).

I also expect that a percentage of them will have been made to wait until the procedure would be more traumatic for all involved by ass-backwards anti-choice laws designed to end-run around women's federally mandated rights by clueless men who have no business interfering.
Again with the straw men. I'm pro choice you goofball. How many times do I have to say it before you put away your list of talking points and have a real, honest discussion?


I'll scrutinise anything when given a worthwhile reason to do so. If there was anything to these videos, the reputable news outlets would have more to say. Reuters and the BBC would be condemning PP. Obama and his government would be condemning them or at least the minority criminal elements that had been exposed working within PP. They are not. Because these videos were shot and edited by a crazy anti-choicer who has been chasing an obsessive personal vendetta against PP for at least a decade now, then released to and overblown by the ERWMCJ (Thats the Extreme Right Wing Media Circle Jerk because they love to copy and paste each others stories, presumably so they can blame whoever they pasted it from if they get sued).
So you haven't watched the videos? Have you or haven't you? It's not a hard question bro.




I got into an argument with several anti-vac morons on FB the other day. They kept claiming they had posted reams of "evidence" in the form of quack-narrated Youtube videos. I didn't watch any of those either and I don't need to to know that they are total BS created by tin-foil hat wearing loons who don't know what the **** they are talking about. Even the interviewees with Dr. before their name or Phd after it.
Irrelevant and trivial. We aren't talking about anti-vaxxers. What relevance does any of this have to our discussion? FTR, I am not an anti-vaxxer nor do I believe anyone in these forums is. What is your point? That there's stupid people out there? You've proved that already a number of times in this thread, your FB conversations can stay there - they don't help us here at all.

So yes, I'm biased against sources that have no credibility whatsoever. I don't have the time to waste. Its the same reason I haven't started a thread here about pigs on the strength of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXVzpdv52Zo
Ok, so you admit that you're biased. Great! We can put that to rest now. Again, can I ask you if you've watched the videos? With the amount of time you've put into this thread taking a hardline position on the videos, I'd imagine you have a few spare minutes to give them a view. It would help you form an unbiased position that doesn't rely on your FB conversations as sources, Ad hominem attacks, and straw men - all of which have no place in any real, logic based discussion.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2015, 10:17 PM
 
Once again, the unedited versions.



45/47
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 06:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Ok, fair enough. Have you watched them yet? (You keep dodging this question!)
I don't know how many times I can say I'm not going to waste my time. Change just posted over 11 hours worth. I have no life and I still don't have that kind of time to waste.



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
42 U.S.C. §289g-1
42 U.S.C. §274e
18 U.S.C. §1531
Real helpful since I'm guessing you know what these are.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It would help if you could demonstrate how any part of McDonald's chicken nuggets production are relevant and non trivial in comparison to the abortion/stem cell cultivation processes.


So all you got is "They're both gross?"
Both 'gross', both common but unknown to the majority of the public, both likely to change peoples minds for non-logical, non-scientific reasons.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I don't deny the value in serves PP renders. I am pro-choice and pro-education, after all. However, if you're going to convince me that PP is worthy of our tax-dollars you're going to have to put in some proactive controls prevent violation of the laws already on the books.
I'm not really seeing any outrage about specific crimes being committed here though. To the point where you go out of your way to avoid naming the crimes in question (So I guess I'm not the only one dodging issues).

If they are telling women these foetuses need to be safely disposed of for health reasons so they can't bury them, then selling them without consent, thats clearly a problem.
If they are paying women for their foetuses, thats a big problem.
If they are performing abortions later than the law allows, thats a problem too.
If they are doing any of the above as a matter of policy thats a huge issue. All I'm really sensing though is "Abortions look like something from a horror movie so these guys should all be locked up"

[QUOTE=Snow-i;4330835]Can you quit it with the straw men and ad hominem attacks? I've never termed anything the sort, and you're putting words in my mouth here (that are way, way off).

Again with the straw men. I'm pro choice you goofball. How many times do I have to say it before you put away your list of talking points and have a real, honest discussion? [/QUOTE[

Not attacks. I'm just trying to humanise the people being accused here. And I'm really not sure I believe you are pro-choice given your stance on most other issues and the fact you seem to be so strongly taken in by a guy who is two steps away from martyring himself at a clinic.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
So you haven't watched the videos? Have you or haven't you? It's not a hard question bro.
Apparently anything more or less than a yes or a no is too hard an answer. No.



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Irrelevant and trivial. We aren't talking about anti-vaxxers. What relevance does any of this have to our discussion? FTR, I am not an anti-vaxxer nor do I believe anyone in these forums is. What is your point? That there's stupid people out there? You've proved that already a number of times in this thread, your FB conversations can stay there - they don't help us here at all.
Just another reasonable comparison. Questionable youtube videos (that anyone whose opinion matters is ignoring completely) as the only evidence, conspiracy theories and forgone conclusions. Lots of similarities.



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Ok, so you admit that you're biased. Great! We can put that to rest now. Again, can I ask you if you've watched the videos? With the amount of time you've put into this thread taking a hardline position on the videos, I'd imagine you have a few spare minutes to give them a view. It would help you form an unbiased position that doesn't rely on your FB conversations as sources, Ad hominem attacks, and straw men - all of which have no place in any real, logic based discussion.
When someone who has to meet a burden of proof starts raising flags or throwing charges around, this will become worthy of attention. As long as its just a bunch of sensationalist media hacks riling up their angry customer base, its a non-issue.
There is no logic based discussion to be had here because those videos didn't come from an undercover reporter at the NY Times or Reuters. They may as well have come from the RCC.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 06:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
42 U.S.C. §289g-1
42 U.S.C. §274e
18 U.S.C. §1531
So I looked these up. If the tissue is for research, not transplant then 42 U.S.C. §274e doesn't apply. It seems fair that PP should be able to safely assume that no transplants are happening, so if they are this one applies to the purchaser. Except isn't the purchaser the guy who made the videos? If I'm wrong and this law is being breached then video guy is guilty too.

From the soundbites people are quoting in this thread I haven't heard anything to suggest either of the other two apply either.
If you wish to direct me to specific timestamps on specific videos, I will take a look.

That last law is kind of weird. I'm surprised there is no mention of length of pregnancy or viability in there. If you pull the head out before you kill it, you're breaking the law.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 09:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You know PP could put an end to this shit real quick by inviting an investigation and being completely transparent. That they're doubling down on their PR machine makes me think the political and financial hooks into the organization are greater than these incidents indicate.
When there's an organized segment of society out to get you, looking for anything to take you out, I'll pass on the transparency, thanks.



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I don't believe PP actively wants anyone doing this, but they haven't really created an environment that discourages or stops it either, from the looks of it.
Them turning a blind eye is also an assumption. A slightly less galling one, I give you.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Follow the $$, and in this case $$ for fetus parts (super fresh at that!).
Let's not get too snooty here, there apparently is medical value in working with those fetuses. If there's one thing I take away from some of the sciences its that what they do may not sit well with me, but it does benefit society.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 09:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
That last law is kind of weird. I'm surprised there is no mention of length of pregnancy or viability in there. If you pull the head out before you kill it, you're breaking the law.
The next video was released this morning. Stem Express CEO Cate Dyer states they receive "intact case"
45/47
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 09:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
When it comes to the Title X money, I consider that a shell game. The Title X money frees up other money, which then gets used for abortions.
I wanted to address this this weekend and forgot. If you consider this a shell game, you can create any situation where the money is being 'manipulated.'

Example: Companies held that the contraceptive mandate violated their religious beliefs. However if their employee was buying the contraceptives, the company was still funding their purchase. SHELL GAME. If the insurance company subsidizes the contraception instead, the company is still funding it through paying for the employees insurance. SHELL GAME.

Ex 2: I'm not sure why we even *logically* accept that government funding can't be used for abortion. First off, since spending exceeds revenue, your tax dollars can be said not to be going to *thing you don't like* because there isn't enough taxpayer money to go around.

But assuming you can't deal with that, how would those who oppose abortion funding feel about pacifists objecting to military spending because innocent civilians get drone-striked constantly during our war on terror? And that's not even bringing in the philosophical/ethical argument of greater harm in 'murdering' fully sentient human beings with a societal and familial presence vs. 'murdering' viable future human beings.

---

Going back to PP, let's say they remove Title X money. But medicare payments still allow them to operate, so those federal funds are still enabling abortions to occur. So we eliminate medicare dollars, but as a non-profit PP gets certain tax breaks which also indirectly allows them fund abortions on the governments dime, so we better eliminate those tax breaks as well. But PP also serves low-income people who likely receive welfare, so we better bar welfare recipients from using planned parenthood in any capacity because the dollars will eventually wind up being used for an abortion. But wait, a significant percentage of americans also get tax returns, so if they use PP the federal government is indirectly funding abortions that way as well...

I think you get my point. Is there some number of degrees of separation that must be achieved for this to be legitimate?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 09:57 AM
 
How is "Intact case" proof that any of the 3 laws listed by Snow-i have been violated?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 10:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I wanted to address this this weekend and forgot. If you consider this a shell game, you can create any situation where the money is being 'manipulated.'

Example: Companies held that the contraceptive mandate violated their religious beliefs. However if their employee was buying the contraceptives, the company was still funding their purchase. SHELL GAME. If the insurance company subsidizes the contraception instead, the company is still funding it through paying for the employees insurance. SHELL GAME.

Ex 2: I'm not sure why we even *logically* accept that government funding can't be used for abortion. First off, since spending exceeds revenue, your tax dollars can be said not to be going to *thing you don't like* because there isn't enough taxpayer money to go around.

But assuming you can't deal with that, how would those who oppose abortion funding feel about pacifists objecting to military spending because innocent civilians get drone-striked constantly during our war on terror? And that's not even bringing in the philosophical/ethical argument of greater harm in 'murdering' fully sentient human beings with a societal and familial presence vs. 'murdering' viable future human beings.

---

Going back to PP, let's say they remove Title X money. But medicare payments still allow them to operate, so those federal funds are still enabling abortions to occur. So we eliminate medicare dollars, but as a non-profit PP gets certain tax breaks which also indirectly allows them fund abortions on the governments dime, so we better eliminate those tax breaks as well. But PP also serves low-income people who likely receive welfare, so we better bar welfare recipients from using planned parenthood in any capacity because the dollars will eventually wind up being used for an abortion. But wait, a significant percentage of americans also get tax returns, so if they use PP the federal government is indirectly funding abortions that way as well...

I think you get my point. Is there some number of degrees of separation that must be achieved for this to be legitimate?
I think they're all shell games, the Medicaid is merely a lesser version.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 10:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think they're all shell games, the Medicaid is merely a lesser version.
...
Is there some number of degrees of separation that must be achieved for this to be legitimate?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 11:01 AM
 
Maybe?

I don't mind tax money being spent on abortion, so I'm not the person to ask.

Also, is legitimacy binary?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 11:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think they're all shell games, the Medicaid is merely a lesser version.
Title X is a grant and Medicare is a payment. So your objection is to the chronology of when they receive federal money? (i.e., for services to be rendered vs. services that have been rendered)
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 11:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Maybe?

I don't mind tax money being spent on abortion, so I'm not the person to ask.
It's obvious your initial post struck a nerve. The rest of the post isn't for you only, though I'd appreciate your input.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
Also, is legitimacy binary?
Excellent question! The way pro-life advocates present it, I would say yes. Your view introduces a gray area. Can legitimacy be defined as enough separation that the average person doesn't realize what's going on? But then again that seems less like legitimacy and more like subterfuge. Again, my other point is that monetarily, everything is connected. If ignorance is the prerequisite for legitimacy, in the Information Age legitimacy will be hard to come by.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 11:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Title X is a grant and Medicare is a payment. So your objection is to the chronology of when they receive federal money? (i.e., for services to be rendered vs. services that have been rendered)
My objection is they don't need it.

Overall, I think you can make a something of a claim payment for a service goes towards maintaining the service provided.

Making the claim a grant is only going to certain services is creative bookkeeping.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It's obvious your initial post struck a nerve. The rest of the post isn't for you only, though I'd appreciate your input.


Excellent question! The way pro-life advocates present it, I would say yes. Your view introduces a gray area. Can legitimacy be defined as enough separation that the average person doesn't realize what's going on? But then again that seems less like legitimacy and more like subterfuge. Again, my other point is that monetarily, everything is connected. If ignorance is the prerequisite for legitimacy, in the Information Age legitimacy will be hard to come by.
I think I get where you're coming from.

If I was pro-life, I'd probably see the legitimacy question as binary, but I'm wary of answering for other people based on a philosophy I don't myself hold.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Making the claim a grant is only going to certain services is creative bookkeeping.
I just don't see the logical difference.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 11:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I just don't see the logical difference.
In inclined to agree. The best I could muster in making the claim is it's something of an argument.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 11:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In inclined to agree. The best I could muster in making the claim is it's something of an argument.
Ok, good, because I felt like a I was being difficult. My conclusion? The federal funding abortion law is feel good legislation to let some people sleep more soundly at night. (Though it's inception may have been to make life for PP more difficult. If that's the case, it failed).


Good lord, I just had the most melodramatic realization. The Hyde Amendment is the Missouri Compromise of the 20th Century. Either abortion is a right or its not; This just kicks the can on the issue further down the road and accomplishes nothing for either side.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 11:22 AM
 
Oh... that part. Absolutely. No question. Isn't worth the paper it was drafted on. Yet another Illinois local wasting everybody's time.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
How is "Intact case" proof that any of the 3 laws listed by Snow-i have been violated?
An "intact case" as Dr. Nucatola states,is an intact baby. If PP is going to harvest organs from them, feticide cannot be used or the organs would be rendered useless. In one of the vidoes it is stated that some of the women are already delivering when they get into the procedure room. One of two things happens next. The baby is killed or allowed to die. I'm pretty sure that violates the born alive infant protection act. In another video, one PP officials talks about altering the procedure in order to obtain what is needed. This violates one of the the laws cited.
45/47
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 12:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
An "intact case" as Dr. Nucatola states,is an intact baby. If PP is going to harvest organs from them, feticide cannot be used or the organs would be rendered useless. In one of the vidoes it is stated that some of the women are already delivering when they get into the procedure room. One of two things happens next. The baby is killed or allowed to die. I'm pretty sure that violates the born alive infant protection act. In another video, one PP officials talks about altering the procedure in order to obtain what is needed. This violates one of the the laws cited.
I'd like to hear from the medical community on this. Doctors, researchers, etc.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 12:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'd like to hear from the medical community on this. Doctors, researchers, etc.
The words of Dr. Nucatola and Dr Ginde aren't suffucient?
45/47
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The words of Dr. Nucatola and Dr Ginde aren't suffucient?
For a guy who constantly posts press releases, clarifications and articles when something nice the Pope said is posted, I would think you would understand the value of context.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 12:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
So I looked these up. If the tissue is for research, not transplant then 42 U.S.C. §274e doesn't apply. It seems fair that PP should be able to safely assume that no transplants are happening, so if they are this one applies to the purchaser. Except isn't the purchaser the guy who made the videos? If I'm wrong and this law is being breached then video guy is guilty too.

From the soundbites people are quoting in this thread I haven't heard anything to suggest either of the other two apply either.
If you wish to direct me to specific timestamps on specific videos, I will take a look.

That last law is kind of weird. I'm surprised there is no mention of length of pregnancy or viability in there. If you pull the head out before you kill it, you're breaking the law.
Have you watched the videos yet? If not, you really have nothing to add here yet. I'm not doing the work for you just because your liberal bias forbids you from having an honest discussion.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
When there's an organized segment of society out to get you, looking for anything to take you out, I'll pass on the transparency, thanks.
Ah yeah, lets just dump our money into it without asking any questions. That should turn out well.


Them turning a blind eye is also an assumption. A slightly less galling one, I give you.
Well if we had some oversight maybe we wouldn't have to make any assumptions. I don't think any of the ones I've posited are far fetched, and I've yet to see any "assumptions" that would fit the scenario better.

What do you think happened?

Let's not get too snooty here, there apparently is medical value in working with those fetuses. If there's one thing I take away from some of the sciences its that what they do may not sit well with me, but it does benefit society.
There's a very fine ethical line in the sciences, many times backed by force of law, that make it patently illegal to perform dissection on live humans. Just chalking it up to science is academically lazy, IMO. Especially when you actively voice against transparency. That's not how science is done.

PS Apologies if my snoot level was higher than average .
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
For a guy who constantly posts press releases, clarifications and articles when something nice the Pope said is posted, I would think you would understand the value of context.
You can hear Drs. Nucatola and Ginde in thier own words if you watch the videos.
45/47
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 12:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Ah yeah, lets just dump our money into it without asking any questions. That should turn out well.
Jesus Christ, talk about a strawman. All I said was I wouldn't be forthcoming if I was them. I didn't say they were above investigation.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
There's a very fine ethical line in the sciences, many times backed by force of law, that make it patently illegal to perform dissection on live humans.
You're still coming from an assumption that all their researchable fetuses are being acquired(aborted) illegally. That may be the case, but as I said, I'll wait for some more objective and informed people to weigh in.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Just chalking it up to science is academically lazy, IMO.
That's not what I said.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Especially when you actively voice against transparency. That's not how science is done.
That's not what I said, either.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
You can hear Drs. Nucatola and Ginde in thier own words if you watch the videos.
Medical and procedural context. Unlike pro-lifers, I'm not an expert on abortion procedure and law.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 12:58 PM
 
If the fetus is at the point there are actual parts, it seems to me you should euthanize them first.

I need an expert to tell me that?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Maybe?

I don't mind tax money being spent on abortion, so I'm not the person to ask.

Also, is legitimacy binary?
In the strictest sense, I'm not either, it's a legally accepted medical procedure. The issue for me is whether they're conducted humanely; shredding a living, feeling thing apart, especially something that, unless there is abnormal intervention, will become a human being, is a brutal, monstrous act.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 01:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If the fetus is at the point there are actual parts, it seems to me you should euthanize them first.

I need an expert to tell me that?
I need an expert to tell me whether this common practice, by PP or in general.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 01:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If the fetus is at the point there are actual parts, it seems to me you should euthanize them first.
Well said, I and concur, but would like to add, "you should painlessly euthanize them first".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 01:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
In the strictest sense, I'm not either, it's a legally accepted medical procedure. The issue for me is whether they're conducted humanely; shredding a living, feeling thing apart, especially something that, unless there is abnormal intervention, will become a human being, is a brutal, monstrous act.
Agreed.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2015, 01:24 PM
 
The problem is, according to what is reported in the videos, if they babies are killed using Digoxin or other feticide prior to the abortion procedure, the organs aren't usable. The tissues are contaminated by the feticide.
45/47
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:40 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,