Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Planned Parenthood exposed (Page 6)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  13  14  15   
Author Topic: Planned Parenthood exposed
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Or we're looking for a company that already does it. Who processes cadavers for medical schools? How do organ donations to science rather than for medical transplant get processed, stored and shipped? You pretending that we live in a world where these problems haven't ALREADY been solved to make your argument.

The answer here is 'hospitals' and 'embalmers', which already have very expensive processes in place for preserving bodies, independent of whether the body is destined to be donated for medical research.

Expecting that such processes are already in place to manage, preserve, catalogue and transport aborted fetal tissue which for the most part is simply handled as medical waste is unreasonable.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They could provide the entire remains for transport to a donee, at virtually no cost, to the donee's retained medical transport company.
But not no cost- even that degree of processing and storage till the transport company pick is up has a small cost- which is reflected in the processing fess that PP charges, which are very much what amounts to "virtually no cost" for medical specimens. That's how you can get a low-end estimate of $30, which would barely cover the cost of putting it on ice for the transport company and paying them to drive it to a local research facility.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
They could hand the fetus right over to a third party...

To give you the benefit of the doubt, could you describe logistically how you think that would work? What would be the steps involved once the fetus is removed?
That'd depend on who they're giving it to, and how close the research facility is to the location where PP conducted the procedure. Medical transport companies, pick up, preserve and deliver tissues and biological samples every day, in every community from typically hundreds of individual medical offices. They could provide the entire remains for transport to a donee, at virtually no cost, to the donee's retained medical transport company. Note I never said they HAD to do it that way, but if they choose to go a different route, they are electing to take on the costs of compliance with law. As that is not something they have to do, there is no reason they shouldn't be held accountable for their compliance, or lack thereof.
I'm looking for specifics. Step 1. The doctor removes the fetus. Step 2?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I'm looking for specifics.

For what purpose? There's a writing exercise where you write out the steps of a simple process, then someone else follows exactly the steps you wrote out. The process never turns out right, generally with funny results. So I'd like to understand where you're going before I try to write a flawed procedure manual.
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:

Or we're looking for a company that already does it. Who processes cadavers for medical schools? How do organ donations to science rather than for medical transplant get processed, stored and shipped? You pretending that we live in a world where these problems haven't ALREADY been solved to make your argument.

The answer here is 'hospitals' and 'embalmers', which already have very expensive processes in place for preserving bodies, independent of whether the body is destined to be donated for medical research.
My point was that these problems have been solved in other contexts, not that the exact same solution is the best. It's a response to the illogical arguments some are making that seem to imply these problems are impossible to solve.
quote:
Expecting that such processes are already in place to manage, preserve, catalogue and transport aborted fetal tissue which for the most part is simply handled as medical waste is unreasonable.
I didn't make such an expectation one of my assumptions. Which makes this argument moot.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My point was that these problems have been solved in other contexts, not that the exact same solution is the best.
They have been, and by all evidence, including the fact that the law that regulated fetal donation explicitly allows for such solutions, they are exactly the process that PP is currently using. You're asking, over and over, for them to throw out those solutions and reinvent the wheel in a much less efficient manner for no good reason other than the fact that anti-PP agitators are trying trick people into thinking something bad is going on.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
Expecting that such processes are already in place to manage, preserve, catalogue and transport aborted fetal tissue which for the most part is simply handled as medical waste is unreasonable.
I didn't make such an expectation one of my assumptions. Which makes this argument moot.
It means that your assumptions are divorced from reality, and thus the arguments made from them are vacuous.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
In any event, the answers the same, there's about a million ways to move the fetuses from one group to the other, and no reason to prefer THIS one just because PP chose to use it.
No, the reason to prefer it is because it's the cheapest and most efficient process for all parties involved,
Is it? Where's your proof on that? This is you confusing your opinion for facts again.
quote:
...which is why organizations choose to use it regardless of which body tissue is being donated.
I agree a single point of butchering and distribution is likely to be more efficient, but there is no efficiency or cost savings by having PP be the butcher and distributor.
quote:
quote:
Well again, not clear that this is actually what PP does. If that were the case, they could simply agree to pass the third party bills straight through to the donee and be out of this particular mess.
There is no evidence to suggest they do otherwise, while all available points to them following such standard procedures.
You should read that again. If you're right and this is what they do, they could just hand over the third party bills to the donee for payment. And we wouldn't be arguing about it. Same way, someone on ebay could charge you the fed-ex shipping costs, rather than a shipping and handling charge.
quote:
Same as PP does it, except that they can't be as sure that any given procedure is going to produce material suitable for any given recipient,
You think there is less certainty in planned abortions and the tissues they produce than in organ donation for transplant? Not a chance. For donation for medical research, probably about the same (at least to the extent the medical research needs fresh organs). For medical school cadavers, clearly more certainty with the cadavers. You're just making bad faith arguments when you mix it all together.
quote:
...so they have to complete the procedure, then match what hey get with the list of interested recipients to choose how to process, store and arrange to ship it after the fact, then bill the associated costs.
They don't have too, they choose to do so.

They could just as easily enter into a master arrangement with a large medical group doing research that requires that group to do the butchering, and to ship on to other's interested in tissue donations the organs and tissue they don't need. One stop shopping, probably more efficient overall than PP doing it from their multiple offices. Steady supply given the number of locations.

When your impossible problem isn't proof against 10 seconds thought, it's not an impossible problem.
quote:
quote:
Like I said, it's a CHOICE that PP is making, so no reason not to hold them strictly liable for compliance.
Indeed, and since there's no evidence that they're not in strict compliance,...
Except for their own admissions against interest. Not enough to convict anyone, but certainly enough to investigate and audit.
quote:
...in fact all evidence presented shows that they are fully in compliance,..
What evidence? I've seen zero. I doubt you've seen anything either, one more instance of you stating your opinion as if it were a fact.
quote:
there's no probable cause for an investigation, only political machination.
Definitely just your opinion here. There's enough evidence to investigate period. What you're doing is trying to make a factual conclusion without doing the investigation, and asserting lack of proof as proof of innocence. Do the investigation, and then you'd have a basis to reach that position.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There's enough evidence to investigate period.
I'm genuinely curious: what standard are you using to determine this? What would be the minimum amount of evidence that would cause you to say, for example, "well, there might be a reason to investigate, but maybe we'd want a little more evidence of wrongdoing first?"

In other words, we have edited videos of people describing legal acts. The accusation here is that they are lying about their legal activities. So we quite literally have speculation about hearsay, from a legal perspective. What less evidence would you require to say that the threshold had not been met?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
side topic/rambling
I wonder if the religious right will be against artificial wombs which can be used to bring a surgically removed fetus to term?

Watching the debates last night I was struck by how absurd all of this arguing of personhood seems to me. Either the mother agrees to use her body to bring the fertilized egg/fetus/tiny person into the world, whole and healthy, or she doesn't. That's the start and end of it.

Yes, it's tragic that a fragile life is ended because it wasn't wanted. Yes, the termination of that life is unpleasant. Yes, I'm pro choice despite that.

Until the life is viable without the mother, it lives or dies on her say so. If you want to reduce or prevent abortions then start promoting safe sex and making birth control accessible. If only we had an organization focused on something like that...

I guess it's easier for both sides to distance themselves from what they are doing. Ending an unwanted life or increasing indoctrination opportunities. Neither are very pretty.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I agree a single point of butchering and distribution is likely to be more efficient, but there is no efficiency or cost savings by having PP be the butcher and distributor.
The only way to avoid that would be to require that all donation procedures have to bo conducted at the location where processing and distribution happens then, since the tissue has to be processed to some degree in a way compatible with the needs of the recipient _before_ it can be shipped. It can't be magically transported to a processing facility directly from the operating table, not to mention that such a process would double shipping costs and double processing costs, since you'd have shipping and processing at PP plus shipping and processing at the third party center. Plus it would mean that PP offices would need to coordinate donations instead of simply arranging them on a case by case basis.

quote:
If you're right and this is what they do, they could just hand over the third party bills to the donee for payment. And we wouldn't be arguing about it.
That is effectively what they're doing, and you you're arguing about it. They still have to predict ahead of time what those bills will be, and they have to actually pay them at the time of pickup to be able to get the donation out the door, then rebill them to the recipient, just like you point out happens on ebay all the time. The seller charges you what UPS or FedEx will charge them then uses that money to pay UPS or FedEx. Some places still operate on a COD basis, perhaps, but I very much doubt, given the expense required, that any medical transport company is going to cross their fingers and hope they get paid after shipment.

And that still doesn't pay of the time and materials needed to be used by the doctor or other medical staff at PP to prep it for transport in a way that's compatible with what the recipient desires.

quote:
You think there is less certainty in planned abortions and the tissues they produce than in organ donation for transplant?
Absolutely, since the law makes it pretty clear that getting intact tissue is a secondary concern. Not to mention that the live-saving nature of a transplant means that it's worth paying a premium for transport to be racking up billable hours onside waiting to take possession as soon as the organ is extracted and processed rather than being called after the fact to pick up a shipment at its earliest convenience. Having transport have to wait on standby like that would probably easily push the baseline cost up to hundreds of dollars.

quote:
They could just as easily enter into a master arrangement with a large medical group doing research that requires that group to do the butchering, and to ship on to other's interested in tissue donations the organs and tissue they don't need. One stop shopping, probably more efficient overall than PP doing it from their multiple offices.
Except, of course, that getting it to that group would requite processing and shipping, and the processing would have to be done with some regard for the ultimate use of the sample, so this suggesting only adds a significant amount of redundant overhead. Additionally, not all facilities would be fortunate enough to have such a facility more accessible than the individual research centers that contract with them.

quote:
quote:
Indeed, and since there's no evidence that they're not in strict compliance,...
Except for their own admissions against interest. Not enough to convict anyone, but certainly enough to investigate and audit.
Which admissions are those? Nothing in the videos gives any indication that they're not exactly complying with the law, despite the bizarre attempts of the actors to try to entrap them into maybe fuding the line a little. Remember, again, that it was the actor trying to push the price _up_ while the PP representative said that the estimate was probably too high and atively rebuffed the up-bids. You don't make much profit if you resist up-bids and suggest that the final charge is very likely to be lower if the real costs end up being lower, while pointing out many times over that the process cannot be charged on anything but an at-cost basis.

Please present any actual evidence of non-compliance. If you want to get even more specific, please present what evidence exists to investigate either Louisiana facility from this given that neither even conduct abortions never mind have any resultant fetal tissue to donate.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I'm looking for specifics.

For what purpose? There's a writing exercise where you write out the steps of a simple process, then someone else follows exactly the steps you wrote out. The process never turns out right, generally with funny results. So I'd like to understand where you're going before I try to write a flawed procedure manual.

I am trying to give you a chance to explain how the tissue, once removed, gets to this third party. Basically, I am seeing the same problems that Pyrtolin is seeing - the tissue still needs to be processed, preserved, possibly stored, and shipped - by PP staff. Clearly, you have other arrangement in mind and I am trying to understand what that is.

[ August 07, 2015, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
My point was that these problems have been solved in other contexts, not that the exact same solution is the best.
They have been, and by all evidence, including the fact that the law that regulated fetal donation explicitly allows for such solutions, they are exactly the process that PP is currently using. You're asking, over and over, for them to throw out those solutions and reinvent the wheel in a much less efficient manner...
I never asked them to do anything different. Go back and find where I said that. I said, given that they are choosing to do it in this manner the burden of compliance with the law is on PP. Your tilting at windmills.
quote:
...for no good reason other than the fact that anti-PP agitators are trying trick people into thinking something bad is going on.
I think that gloss says everything about why you're not able to grok the things I'm actually saying.
quote:
quote:
quote:

Expecting that such processes are already in place to manage, preserve, catalogue and transport aborted fetal tissue which for the most part is simply handled as medical waste is unreasonable.

I didn't make such an expectation one of my assumptions. Which makes this argument moot.
It means that your assumptions are divorced from reality, and thus the arguments made from them are vacuous
Did you decide to take up my challenge then and post a logical argument.

Very well, explain what ASSUMPTION I made that is incorrect. Feel free to list every assumption that is necessary to my argument if it helps. Lol, good luck.
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'm genuinely curious: what standard are you using to determine this? What would be the minimum amount of evidence that would cause you to say, for example, "well, there might be a reason to investigate, but maybe we'd want a little more evidence of wrongdoing first?"

That depends on a bunch of things doesn't it? Do you think the department of health should inspect restaurants routinely, or only after a complaint? On the other hand, you'd need a pretty convincing amount of evidence to conduct a dawn raid looking for tax records now wouldn't you, oh wait.... or to collect phone records for every American citizen on every call, oh wait again...

In this case, it's not a complex law. Don't sell fetal tissue. You can however, charge back your expenses - make sure they are reasonable. Negotiating the price or even having different prices for more "desirable" tissues (rather than say on the cost to produce) is smoke. A prosecutor may look at the amounts involved and decide they couldn't prove the case (reasonable doubt is WAY friggin higher than probable cause after all).

To answer your question, I'd be comfortable with this being an area that is subject to routine compliance inspections, so I'm not overly sympathetic to hand waiving over evidence of a problem. I mean that idiot in Philly passed how many inspections, got by how many complaints, just because certain people see any attack, even the most justified, as some conspiracy based attack on all women.
quote:
In other words, we have edited videos of people describing legal acts.
With implications that illegal acts be structure to appear legal, and that procedures were changed to produce high value tissues (for which higher compensation was paid). Flat out, all I see you doing is asserting your ideology as if it were a fact.
quote:
Originally posted by KMBoots:
am trying to give you a chance to explain how the tissue, once removed, gets to this third party. Basically, I am seeing the same problems that Pyrtolin is seeing - the tissue still needs to be processed, preserved, possibly stored, and shipped - by PP staff. Clearly, you have other arrangement in mind and I am trying to understand what that is.

How much involvement does the PP staff actually have to have? Seriously, beyond putting the fetus into cold storage, what do they personally have to do that could not be done by another party. Anything past the point of what they have to do is a choice. This is just one of those areas where there are compliance costs involved.

And by the way, I don't care if they do it or not, and I never said otherwise. I care that they comply with the law. If they're going to do things they don't have to do AND want to get paid for those efforts they have to limit their payments to cost. It's plain and simple.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
people see any attack, even the most justified, as some conspiracy based attack on all women
Is that not exactly what this is?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
I agree a single point of butchering and distribution is likely to be more efficient, but there is no efficiency or cost savings by having PP be the butcher and distributor.
The only way to avoid that would be to require that all donation procedures have to bo conducted at the location where processing and distribution happens then,
False and previously refuted.
quote:
...since the tissue has to be processed to some degree in a way compatible with the needs of the recipient _before_ it can be shipped.
These aren't transplant donations. The needs of the donee are the donee's responsibility. I'm not at all convinced that the typical usage requires that the fetus be dissected by PP staff at their offices. Frankly, I suspect the medical researchers would be better at it anyway.

The only real argument you have is a convenience one, but convenience can't be a justification for not strictly comply with law. If PP wants to do it, comply.
quote:
It can't be magically transported to a processing facility directly from the operating table, not to mention that such a process would double shipping costs and double processing costs, since you'd have shipping and processing at PP plus shipping and processing at the third party center.
Potentially true, not true if the donee is the recipient. Not true if there are multiple recipients since - at most - its one additional shipment than has to happen any way. And potentially much more efficient if the processing office serves multiple PP locations.
quote:
Plus it would mean that PP offices would need to coordinate donations instead of simply arranging them on a case by case basis.
You have this argument backwards. It's far less work to send all fetal tissue to a single point and let them handle the donation requests (could even be an industry organization for the donees) than to arrange for individual arrangements for each type of tissue with each PP office independently.
quote:
quote:
If you're right and this is what they do, they could just hand over the third party bills to the donee for payment. And we wouldn't be arguing about it.
That is effectively what they're doing, and you you're arguing about it.
Effectively? Do you hear yourself. You don't see the difference between sending someone your Fed-Ex receipt and charging them 20 bucks and keeping any change? I know plenty of kids who's primary income source was "change."
quote:
They still have to predict ahead of time what those bills will be,
That's the beauty of a reimbursement system, they DO NOT have to predict them ahead of time.
quote:
...and they have to actually pay them at the time of pickup to be able to get the donation out the door, then rebill them to the recipient, just like you point out happens on ebay all the time.
Or the donee could pre-pay them (which happens ALL the time as well). I forget though, some of you have no actual real world experience, so routine matters seem like magic or something.
quote:
And that still doesn't pay of the time and materials needed to be used by the doctor or other medical staff at PP to prep it for transport in a way that's compatible with what the recipient desires.
Which doesn't have to be PP's responsibility. That's a choice they are making.
quote:
quote:
You think there is less certainty in planned abortions and the tissues they produce than in organ donation for transplant?
Absolutely, since the law makes it pretty clear that getting intact tissue is a secondary concern.
Death of person with intact organs is more predictable than the date of planned abortion. Anyone want to back him on this absurd claim? Chances are not only is the organ availability far more predictable, the timeliness of the need on the back end is far more predictable as well.
quote:
Not to mention that the live-saving nature of a transplant means that it's worth paying a premium for transport to be racking up billable hours onside waiting to take possession as soon as the organ is extracted and processed rather than being called after the fact to pick up a shipment at its earliest convenience. Having transport have to wait on standby like that would probably easily push the baseline cost up to hundreds of dollars.
That's almost a reasonable criticism. Its really really close. But it fails, because you haven't explained any need for urgency in the recipient of research tissues. Life saving donations have to be transplanted before the organ dies. Is there any percentage of fetal tissue research that needs live tissue?

I'm bored with you. You're illogical held up on resolvable problems, you can't separate out the minimum that has to be done from the efficient at all. I don't get how to have a reasonable discussion on those terms.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is involved in putting tissue into cold storage? Is there a container? Does it have to be a sterile container? Of a specific material? How cold? Do certain temperatures work better for certain things? Does anything have to be done to the tissue first? If one part is going to one place and another to a different place do they need to be separated right away or can that be done after they are put into storage? Who does that? Is that harder to do once the tissue is frozen? Do we need them to be frozen? Do we need them to be not frozen? How long can they stay in cold storage? How is the storage and whatever container might be used obtained and maintained?

These are the kinds of questions it would be helpful to have you answer. I don't think it is as simple as tossing the fetus into a fridge.

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
people see any attack, even the most justified, as some conspiracy based attack on all women
Is that not exactly what this is?
What. is the "this" antecedent? Planned Parenthood's admission that the doctor's language on the video was cold blooded and embarassing?

You still calling yourself a pro~lifer, Tom?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
side topic/rambling
I wonder if the religious right will be against artificial wombs which can be used to bring a surgically removed fetus to term?

Watching the debates last night I was struck by how absurd all of this arguing of personhood seems to me. Either the mother agrees to use her body to bring the fertilized egg/fetus/tiny person into the world, whole and healthy, or she doesn't. That's the start and end of it.

Yes, it's tragic that a fragile life is ended because it wasn't wanted. Yes, the termination of that life is unpleasant. Yes, I'm pro choice despite that.

Until the life is viable without the mother, it lives or dies on her say so. If you want to reduce or prevent abortions then start promoting safe sex and making birth control accessible.

I absolutely agree with everything you just said. That is why I am pro choice. I dont trust the government to abrbitrate between a pregnant woman and her embryo. So while I roughly agree with the timeline rules of roe v wade, I find the underlying "personhood" argument to be dehumanizing.

As the father of a son whose only possible hope in life is some sort of brain tissue transplan. (Specifically a bilateral replacement of his limbic region) I understand as well as anyone why fetal. tissue offers exciting possibilities. But if we're harvesting tissue from individuals based on this selective denial of personhood, then i am concerned with where that takes us as a society.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What. is the "this" antecedent? Planned Parenthood's admission that the doctor's language on the video was cold blooded and embarassing?
Rather, it's referring to the fact that there was in fact a conspiracy to produce the videos, and a conspiracy to release them; several Congresspeople feigning shock were revealed to have seen the videos months earlier, and coordinated with the producers to officially "release" them when it would be politically convenient. There is no serious intent here to prosecute the sale of tissues; rather, the intent is to make stupid people believe that Planned Parenthood seduces women into abortions so they can profit from the sale of baby parts, all so they can trump up investigations that go nowhere and, as they did with ACORN, use the existence of these pointless investigations as grounds to pull funding.

quote:
You still calling yourself a pro~lifer, Tom?
Yep. Although it's getting harder and harder to allow myself to be associated with the rest of these nimrods. Planned Parenthood is an incredibly valuable institution, and the idiots attacking it are actually making it harder to have a serious conversation about the topic of late-term abortion.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
The only way to avoid that would be to require that all donation procedures have to bo conducted at the location where processing and distribution happens then,
False and previously refuted.
By pure assertion- you're actively refusing to respond to kmbboots on how you expect the material to magically prepare itself for transport and store itself until transport arrives in order to actually provide any substantive refutation.

quote:
I'm not at all convinced that the typical usage requires that the fetus be dissected by PP staff at their offices. Frankly, I suspect the medical researchers would be better at it anyway.
I have yer to meet a research scientist that would prefer to spend time prepping their ow specimens than have someone more specialized do it. And given the choice between a grad student and a trained surgeon each with clear instructions, they'd likely choose the one with more skill and closer to the point of extraction if that's what produces the best result. But that's certainly going to be more expensive, which is why different recipients have different requirements and the processing costs that PP charges are variable based on wither minimal processing is needed, or the recipient has specific requirements that have to be met as part of the initial processing. Im sure there are many cases where it's easiest all around to to the bare minimum to prepare it for storage and shipping, but maybe, just maybe you should give the recipient scientists a little bit of credit for knowing their own needs if they tell PP that it's essential that certain processing needs to be done before shipping to ensure that the specimen is usable for their purposes when they get it.

quote:
The only real argument you have is a convenience one, but convenience can't be a justification for not strictly comply with law. If PP wants to do it, comply.
Certainly. And everything in the videos suggests that they are very carefully about strictly complying with the letter and intent of the law, despite needling from the investor to violate it. While you are here suggesting that they take absurd and extreme measures that introduce cost despite the law explicitly written to avoid such inefficiency.

quote:
Effectively? Do you hear yourself. You don't see the difference between sending someone your Fed-Ex receipt and charging them 20 bucks and keeping any change?
Indeed, but there is no evidence that the latter is happening. (And "effectively" means that they're following the standard practice of billing the exact amount that shipping will cost and paying the shipper, since it's their default responsibility at the point of origin to pay that bill. The shipment won't go until the shipper is paid) That's a completely made up assertion on your part here that you have no evidence for. You're begging the question unless you can present any actual evidence that it's happening aside from your vacuous assertion that they must be doing that.

quote:
Or the donee could pre-pay them (which happens ALL the time as well).
Perhaps, but that would introduce needless complexity, and thus additional costs in the time required to track and verify that the payment was set up, in hoping that that particular delivery company would be available in the required time frame. Why go to extra and unnecessary convoluted measures when the law explicitly says that the donor can bill back shipping costs, in order to keep the process simple and efficient.

You keep talking about being in strict compliance with the law- billing back shipping costs as PP is doing _is_ strict compliance with the law.

quote:
quote:
And that still doesn't pay of the time and materials needed to be used by the doctor or other medical staff at PP to prep it for transport in a way that's compatible with what the recipient desires.
Which doesn't have to be PP's responsibility. That's a choice they are making.
You're suggesting that the can magically teleport the fetal tissue to some other processing facility to process and hold it for transport as soon as its removed? I imagine the technology and capability to do that would, in and of itself be pretty pricey. If the tissue is extract at a PP facility, it has to be processed processed on the spot before it can be held for transport, and that processing has to be compatible with the needs of the ultimate recipient. Short of magic, it's impossible for the processing to happen anywhere but a PP facility if the PP facility is where the procedure took place, because it must be processed to some degree in order to be made ready for transport.

quote:
Death of person with intact organs is more predictable than the date of planned abortion. Anyone want to back him on this absurd claim? Chances are not only is the organ availability far more predictable, the timeliness of the need on the back end is far more predictable as well.
That's specious.

Given a dead person with intact organs and an abortion, the likelihood of extracting intact and usable organs is much greater in the fromer case, where no concern for patinent safety applies than in the latter, where even a slight concern for patient saftey can easily render the sample unsuable for a given donation need. In the former case the transport can be called and asked to wait for extraction and processing at the moment they know the procedure is going to happen, because the extra cost of retaining an idle transport is justified, while in the latter case paying an arbitrary amount based on the variable time of the procedure and processing (and the possibility that no usable sample will be produced in any given case) is absurd, it's cheaper, more efficient and in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the law to arrange for transport once there is something to transport.


quote:
quote:
Not to mention that the live-saving nature of a transplant means that it's worth paying a premium for transport to be racking up billable hours onside waiting to take possession as soon as the organ is extracted and processed rather than being called after the fact to pick up a shipment at its earliest convenience. Having transport have to wait on standby like that would probably easily push the baseline cost up to hundreds of dollars.
That's almost a reasonable criticism. Its really really close. But it fails, because you haven't explained any need for urgency in the recipient of research tissues. Life saving donations have to be transplanted before the organ dies. Is there any percentage of fetal tissue research that needs live tissue?
Your reply here is incoherent. You're the one suggesting they use techniques that are only worth the cost in high urgency situations, such has paying transport to be immediately on hand and waiting through a procedure as if for a live organ donation.

My explicit point was that there's no urgency, so there's no practical or legal reason to run up that cost instead of processing ans storing the tissue being donated until it is convenient for the transport company to pick it up. (And in some cases to process in in such a way that it could use a cheaper conventional shipping method if the recipients requirements allow for it.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Very well, explain what ASSUMPTION I made that is incorrect.
Your assumption that they're not complying strictly with the law simply because agitators intent on shutting PP down on ideological grounds have released a video that they falsely claim suggests noncompliance is wrong. You are starting from a position of bias against them instead of from a presumption of innocence until any actual compelling evidence comes to light

As Tom points out, the goal here is not to provide any actual evidence- the video has none at all. It's to gin up a false scandal, waste resources on investigations and then use the phoney scandal and the fact of investigations (despite the fact that none find any wrongdoing) as political capital for ideological opponents of PP to grind their axes on.

There's no substance to the claims, they're pure theatre designed to manipulate people.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
for more "desirable" tissues (rather than say on the cost to produce) is smoke.
You do understand that it is the difficulty and cost to produce certain tissues that is exactly what makes the "desirable". It's specifically the fact that they tend to be destroyed unless extra care is taken to preserve them that means that it costs more to reliably get them intact. In this context "desirable" and "high cost to produce" are synonymous. (Not in all contexts, just this particular one)
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I mean that idiot in Philly passed how many inspections, got by how many complaints, just because certain people see any attack, even the most justified, as some conspiracy based attack on all women.
PAssed no inspections. A big part of the scandal was that the complaints were ignored and the regular inspection process was not applied at all.

Here we're talking about a process where there haven't been any complaints, the shock video produced on demonstrates strict compliance with the law, and yet investigations are being launched against facilities that don't even provide the service in question, never mind the ones that have been launched against relevant facilities coming back affirming that they're in full compliance.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Seriously, beyond putting the fetus into cold storage, what do they personally have to do that could not be done by another party. Anything past the point of what they have to do is a choice. This is just one of those areas where there are compliance costs involved.
And operating cold storage costs nothing? Preparing it to be stored takes no time? I'll not fully rehash kmbboots here, but you've just expressed exactly why they do need to charge a nominal fee, even for the lowest requirements.

quote:
And by the way, I don't care if they do it or not, and I never said otherwise. I care that they comply with the law. If they're going to do things they don't have to do AND want to get paid for those efforts they have to limit their payments to cost. It's plain and simple.
And yet, despite the evidence indicating that that's exactly what they're doing, you continue to assert groundless accusations that they're doing otherwise. Your attempts to assert wrongdoing tend to belie your claim of not caring, because you seem to be going out of your way to find some scrap of evidence that would prove that they're doing anything but simply charging back at cost, as they clearly stated that they were doing while actively resisting attempts to try to get them to do otherwise.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
What. is the "this" antecedent? Planned Parenthood's admission that the doctor's language on the video was cold blooded and embarassing?
Rather, it's referring to the fact that there was in fact a conspiracy to produce the videos, and a conspiracy to release them; several Congresspeople feigning shock were revealed to have seen the videos months earlier, and coordinated with the producers to officially "release" them when it would be politically convenient. There is no serious intent here to prosecute the sale of tissues; rather, the intent is to make stupid people believe that Planned Parenthood seduces women into abortions so they can profit from the sale of baby parts, all so they can trump up investigations that go nowhere and, as they did with ACORN, use the existence of these pointless investigations as grounds to pull funding.

quote:
You still calling yourself a pro~lifer, Tom?
Yep. Although it's getting harder and harder to allow myself to be associated with the rest of these nimrods. Planned Parenthood is an incredibly valuable institution, and the idiots attacking it are actually making it harder to have a serious conversation about the topic of late-term abortion.

Thank you for a specific answer.

Good argument that it was a conspiracy. But not that it was a conspiracy against "all women." or even that the target is limited to women. I'm concerned about the effect on birth control generally if we defund planned parenthood.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I dont like the idea of using fetal parts to cover the costs of killing and extracting it. Reminds me too much of China billing parents for the bullet to execute their son.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Planned Parenthood attack seems to me to be just a replacement of Obamacare as some red meat to enrage voters. Seems like death panels and the Ground Zero Mosque, and outrage that enables distraction.

It's what hundreds of millions of dollars can buy, the result of a persistent search for scandal fuel.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
These are the kinds of questions it would be helpful to have you answer. I don't think it is as simple as tossing the fetus into a fridge.

I still don't get why you think it would be helpful. Is it your contention that no one but PP staff can do these things? It's my contention they do some of them for convenience and efficiency, and others to increase the payments they are going to receive (eg for example changing procedures to recover high "value" tissus"). Or is it your contention that it's impossible to do these things in ANY other way? Which honestly, would be laughable.
quote:
What is involved in putting tissue into cold storage?
Multiple things. Depends on whether you intend to cold store the fetus or the individual tissues.
quote:
Is there a container?
Sure.
quote:
Does it have to be a sterile container?
Probably depends on intended use by the donee, but very likely at least the bag has to be sterile, and possibly the container.
quote:
Of a specific material? How cold?
See prior answers re: usage.
quote:
Do certain temperatures work better for certain things?
See prior answers.
quote:
Does anything have to be done to the tissue first?
See prior answers.
quote:
If one part is going to one place and another to a different place do they need to be separated right away or can that be done after they are put into storage? Who does that?
Now that's the question isn't it. Has anyone here put ANY evidence on this point in play? Nope. So speaking in absolutes is nonsensical. There's absolutely no reason to believe ONLY PP is capable of doing this, though I'd tend to suspect some of it is reasonably efficient for them to do.
quote:
Is that harder to do once the tissue is frozen? Do we need them to be frozen? Do we need them to be not frozen?
Shouldn't you already know the answers to this if you are asserting only PP can do this? Harder is an efficiency argument, not a reason to overcharge.
quote:
How long can they stay in cold storage? How is the storage and whatever container might be used obtained and maintained?
Why would it matter? These have nothing to do with whether PP is choosing to be more involved than they have to be.
quote:
These are the kinds of questions it would be helpful to have you answer. I don't think it is as simple as tossing the fetus into a fridge.
And see, I don't they are helpful at all to have me answer. You guys are the ones taking an absolute position, ie that this is the only way PP can do it. All I've said is that there are multiple ways to do (and I've listed more than several), it's on you to prove there is no other way if you want to make the absolutist statement.

And, all I've said is that PP has to comply with law. Nothing more or less. Hardly controversial (unless people are letting their emotions run away with them).

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
These are the kinds of questions it would be helpful to have you answer. I don't think it is as simple as tossing the fetus into a fridge.

I still don't get why you think it would be helpful. Is it your contention that no one but PP staff can do these things?
Because PP staff are the people who are actually there.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
quote:
The only way to avoid that would be to require that all donation procedures have to bo conducted at the location where processing and distribution happens then,
False and previously refuted.
By pure assertion-
By providing specific examples multiple times of how it could work. Are you confused about what the examples entailed?
quote:
...you're actively refusing to respond to kmbboots on how you expect the material to magically prepare itself for transport and store itself until transport arrives in order to actually provide any substantive refutation.
What magic? lol. You were refuted, get over it.
quote:
quote:
I'm not at all convinced that the typical usage requires that the fetus be dissected by PP staff at their offices. Frankly, I suspect the medical researchers would be better at it anyway.
I have yer to meet a research scientist that would prefer to spend time prepping their ow specimens than have someone more specialized do it.
And? Is there some research the research scientist is incapable of hiring a trained specialist to do it? Might perhaps they be in a position to give special guidance and instruction to their own employee that they can't do with PP's?
quote:
And given the choice between a grad student and a trained surgeon each with clear instructions, they'd likely choose the one with more skill and closer to the point of extraction if that's what produces the best result.
Ahh.... choice, see you can admit being in the wrong (when you don't realize you're doing it of course).
quote:
quote:
The only real argument you have is a convenience one, but convenience can't be a justification for not strictly comply with law. If PP wants to do it, comply.
Certainly.
See you can admit it.
quote:
And everything in the videos suggests that they are very carefully about strictly complying with the letter and intent of the law, despite needling from the investor to violate it.
Umm.. you must be watching different videos. They certainly suggest manipulation of the law, not strict compliance.
quote:
While you are here suggesting that they take absurd and extreme measures that introduce cost despite the law explicitly written to avoid such inefficiency.
I did? Quote me please.
quote:
Indeed, but there is no evidence that the latter is happening.
There's enough to investigate the question.
quote:
(And "effectively" means that they're following the standard practice of billing the exact amount that shipping will cost and paying the shipper, since it's their default responsibility at the point of origin to pay that bill.
If that's what you mean by "effectively" then you are in error. They are negotiating the charges in advance, not billing through the actual shipping costs.
quote:
The shipment won't go until the shipper is paid) That's a completely made up assertion on your part here that you have no evidence for. You're begging the question unless you can present any actual evidence that it's happening aside from your vacuous assertion that they must be doing that.
Pyrtolin, best I can understand you, your evidentiary standard is whatever you believe is a "fact" and whatever anyone else believes or can prove is not. Not really sure how anyone would ever present you with satisfactory evidence. You're welcome to provide an example if you think this is untrue.

Most of the rest of you post is just nonsensical reassertion of your opinion as fact.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Shouldn't you already know the answers to this if you are asserting only PP can do this?

Not to get in between you folks, but I don't think anyone is asserting that "only PP can do this"; what I do see is people disputing that
1. There is evidence that PP is overcharging for the service, and
2. Your hypothetical doesn't take into account all those unknowns you just pointed out: so even as a hypothetical, it isn't useful in suggesting that PP might be lining their pockets.

It's a bit odd that addressing what are perceived to be flaws in your hypothetical would be interpreted as gaps in an argument not being made, i.e., that PP is not doing anything illegal specifically because there are all these well-defined costs that add up exactly to the numbers published by PP, and that there is no room for profit.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Shouldn't you already know the answers to this if you are asserting only PP can do this?

Not to get in between you folks, but I don't think anyone is asserting that "only PP can do this"; what I do see is people disputing that
1. There is evidence that PP is overcharging for the service, and

Well I think the structuring is enough evidence to support that claim. Whether it's illegal would be a different question, but certainly enough evidence to investigate.
quote:
2. Your hypothetical doesn't take into account all those unknowns you just pointed out: so even as a hypothetical, it isn't useful in suggesting that PP might be lining their pockets.
Well my hypothetical is about whether PP is choosing to do more than they have to do. Everything I said is to show there are other ways to accomplish the task. Are you disputing that?

I offered the hypotheticals to show they had a choice in incurring costs, nothing more. So when they are arguing with my hypo's, all they can really be asserting on point is that PP is doing this in the only way possible (ie the absolutist position).

Is it your view that PP is doing this in the only POSSIBLE way, and has no ability to choose to do less than they currently do, or not?
quote:
It's a bit odd that addressing what are perceived to be flaws in your hypothetical would be interpreted as gaps in an argument not being made, i.e., that PP is not doing anything illegal specifically because there are all these well-defined costs that add up exactly to the numbers published by PP, and that there is no room for profit.
Except, I never made a substantive argument. I specifically said there is cause to investigate, not that PP is presumed guilty.

Is this really unclear, cause it reads to me like they are reading what they want to argue against (ie strawman) rather than what I said.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Very well, explain what ASSUMPTION I made that is incorrect.
Your assumption that they're not complying strictly with the law simply because agitators intent on shutting PP down on ideological grounds have released a video that they falsely claim suggests noncompliance is wrong.
I didn't assume that. And it's not a premise my argument relies on. Logic fail.

In fact, if you understood logic, what I asserted is that there is enough evidence to INVESTIGATE that very question (it can't be an assumption, if I'm arguing that we need to find it out now can it?).
quote:
You are starting from a position of bias against them instead of from a presumption of innocence until any actual compelling evidence comes to light
You mean like compelling evidence that would potential come out in the investigation you seem intent on suppressing? Lol. I have no bias one way or the other, personally I doubt they've done anything that it's convictable. You've just made a false assumption of your own about my position.
quote:
As Tom points out, the goal here is not to provide any actual evidence- the video has none at all.
And didn't I call for investigating and obtaining evidence? Lol, you guys apparently have no idea of what kind of basis someone needs to launch an investigation. You're arguing that government officials should turn a blind eye and engage in wilfull blindness to potential violations of law. Neglect their duty.
quote:
It's to gin up a false scandal, waste resources on investigations and then use the phoney scandal and the fact of investigations (despite the fact that none find any wrongdoing) as political capital for ideological opponents of PP to grind their axes on.
Or it's to quite sensibly enforce a law on trafficking in fetal tissues against one of the few parties in the country that routinely deals in fetal tissues. Funny how you guys are for regulation in every other area of life, but somehow think its a gross imposition to make sure the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed on this one.

So your attempt at a logical critique is a fail. Do you want to play again?
quote:
PAssed no inspections. A big part of the scandal was that the complaints were ignored and the regular inspection process was not applied at all.
Complaints weren't ignored, they were derailed, specifically on the same style of arguments you're advocating here. That you know, they were the charges of radicals out to stop women from having abortions. Specifically they derailed complaints that directly impacted the health and safety of women, sacrificed them in their ideological battle.
quote:
Here we're talking about a process where there haven't been any complaints,...
I'm sure that's no longer true. And even so, it's hardly relevant about whether a law is broken to argue that no one complained about it.
quote:
...the shock video produced on demonstrates strict compliance with the law, and yet investigations are being launched against facilities that don't even provide the service in question, never mind the ones that have been launched against relevant facilities coming back affirming that they're in full compliance.
First of all, it didn't demonstrate strict compliance or noncompliance, that's not what a video could do, only what an inspection would do. And of course, the investigate person would say they are in compliance.

I'm really not sure why you guys are arguing against inspection.

[ August 10, 2015, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm really not sure why you guys are arguing against inspection.
You mean other than the regular financial audits they already have to do every fiscal year?

Hey, if we're going to order extra audits as a result of edited videos that suggest potential ill intent, it seems to me that we should really be starting with investment banks.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Hey, if we're going to order extra audits as a result of edited videos that suggest potential ill intent, it seems to me that we should really be starting with investment banks.

Lol, you mean the banks that have office space put aside for the Federal Reserve and OCC, the same banks who have multiple compliance regulators in each year? Seriously, you would be hard pressed to find an industry with more audits than banks. You guys are scary with how "authoritatively" you speak on topics you seem not to know much about.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Well my hypothetical is about whether PP is choosing to do more than they have to do. Everything I said is to show there are other ways to accomplish the task. Are you disputing that?

Actually, yes, somewhat: you are giving a handwaving suggestion of how things might be better off otherwise, but you have not actually shown, as Kate requested, what those steps might look like in the real world.

And until you do, I don't think you have even begun to rebut Kate and Pyrtolin's objections.

Your position seems to be, that an edited video that does not in fact indicate illegal activities, but rather highlights activities that are actually legal should be enough to warrant further investigation of potentially improper activities.

More than, say, the audits that PP already undergoes every year.

Why not take up Kate's challenge, and illustrate specifically what steps you think that PP could take along the fulfillment process, that would be more cost-effective, and that they are not already doing - starting at the point where the surgeon removes the fetus in the operating room.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Seriously, you would be hard pressed to find an industry with more audits than banks.
And yet. [Wink]
Is it your contention that these audits are effective? I'm sincerely asking.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Well my hypothetical is about whether PP is choosing to do more than they have to do. Everything I said is to show there are other ways to accomplish the task. Are you disputing that?

Actually, yes, somewhat: you are giving a handwaving suggestion of how things might be better off otherwise,
Did I? Please quote me where I said they would be better off.
quote:
...but you have not actually shown, as Kate requested, what those steps might look like in the real world.
I've actually put multiple versions of what it would look like. What I haven't done is put out a detailed walk through of the process. It's not clear why you would expect someone to engage in such a nonsensical pursuit as to write a guide on exactly how do something that they don't actually do. I've given analogies to similar types of processes, with similar types of tissues (some more demanding conditions, some less), and nothing you guys have proffered is an insurmountable obstacle or a clear case requiring unique treatment.

And you all seem to be under the bizarre impression that I care how they do it.
quote:
And until you do, I don't think you have even begun to rebut Kate and Pyrtolin's objections.
As far as I can tell Kate hasn't made objections. And honestly, Pyrtolin's don't count since they're just his opinion asserted as fact.
quote:
Your position seems to be, that an edited video that does not in fact indicate illegal activities, but rather highlights activities that are actually legal should be enough to warrant further investigation of potentially improper activities.
My position is that the video raises enough questions to investigate. Period.
quote:
More than, say, the audits that PP already undergoes every year.
What audit are you talking about? Or are you just piling on the prior claim of a financial audit?
quote:
Why not take up Kate's challenge, and illustrate specifically what steps you think that PP could take along the fulfillment process,
Because I specifically think that's a side track, designed to spark arguments about the steps when my only point is that there's more than one way to accomplish this goal.
quote:
...that would be more cost-effective,...
Quote where I said it would be please. It's a possibility in certain models (regional centers), but unlikely in other models.
quote:
...and that they are not already doing -
I don't care how they do it, so long as they comply with the law.
quote:
...starting at the point where the surgeon removes the fetus in the operating room.
I've expressed this multiple times. Let's keep it simple. Are you asserting that there is no other way that this could work, other than a PP staffer has to do the butchering on site?
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Davidson:
quote:

Seriously, you would be hard pressed to find an industry with more audits than banks.

And yet. [Wink]
Is it your contention that these audits are effective? I'm sincerely asking.

It's my contention that the regulations are poorly drafted, the audits themselves are very effective at causing compliance with the crappy regulations in the industry.

Does that answer your question, or were you trying to glean if I think the regulatory scheme is effective at achieving some [goal] you value?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's my contention that the regulations are poorly drafted, the audits themselves are very effective at causing compliance with the crappy regulations in the industry.
This is very interesting to me, and confirms that you're working from a very different set of sources and principles in general than those that I value -- not so much what you said, mind, but the extremely careful manner in which you felt it necessary to say it.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:


quote:
...starting at the point where the surgeon removes the fetus in the operating room.
I've expressed this multiple times. Let's keep it simple. Are you asserting that there is no other way that this could work, other than a PP staffer has to do the butchering on site?

I am saying that somebody has to do something on site because that is where the tissue is. I am saying that it considerably more effective, efficient and inexpensive, for that somebody to be a PP staffer because those are the people who are actually there. If you have a plan that contradicts this, you have yet to show it despite several invitations to do that.

[ August 11, 2015, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I am saying that somebody has to do something on site because that is where the tissue is.

That's true, it's a question of how much. Remember we were discussing whether $100 of "shipping and handling" is appropriate, especially given that the procedure itself, including appropriate doctor's time, technician's time, cleaning, sterilization, etc. runs from $400 to $750 depending on the location.

If it was demonstrable that the fetus could be placed by a minimum wage worker in a freeze capable sterile shipping container (provided by the donee) and shipped with less than five minutes of prep and handling time (with shipping paid by recipient). That would be, even in Seattle, a "cost" of less than $1.50.

I have no reason to believe that's reasonable or sensible though, AND NEITHER DO YOU. That's what an investigation is for, determining the reasonableness.

And I've already said, I have NO problem with this activity being one that IS subject to audit, ie investigation without specific cause as a function of getting licensed to engage in it. That's not where the law is on it though.
quote:
I am saying that it considerably more effective, efficient and inexpensive, for that somebody to be a PP staffer because those are the people who are actually there.
There's a reasonable possibility that's true (it may be, it may be more efficient to freeze, ship and centralize, or it may not). But, and this is the KEY but, being efficient is NOT the same thing as being necessary. That's why I keep pointing out it's a CHOICE PP is making.
quote:
If you have a plan that contradicts this, you have yet to show it despite several invitations to do that.
Simple question on this.

Can you or can you not understand why I think it would be completely irrelevant to do so?

We're clearly having a failure to communicate, here, since none of you seem to get it.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  13  14  15   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1