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 8)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  13  14  15   
Author Topic: Planned Parenthood exposed
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 Rafi:
So you find it funny? Why is there a need for gallows humor?

I dont find it funny, nor do i find it sinister. You might say the same thing if you were shipping a human eyeball for transplant. Or a cadaver for an anatomy lab.

When I was a lab aid for anatomy, a nurse student asked how to tell which side of the brain was the front. I held the brain in front of her, hoping she'd notice the attached eyeballs, but she didnt catch on until I said "here's looking at you, kid." then she screamed. And all the other nursing students laughed.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rafi,

quote:
So you find it funny?
As I said, it is by definition 'funny' to the human neurological system.

quote:
Why is there a need for gallows humor?
Here is what 'Holistic Nursing: A Handbook for Practice' says,

quote:
Gallows Humor: Protection from Pain

Gallows humor is often used by professionals who work in situations that are horrifying or tragic. Every day these people cope with the reality and horror of illness, suffering, and death. In this group are doctors, nurses, police officers, newspaper journalists, social workers, hospice workers, and many others. These professionals, because of their caring and compassion, are more likely to feel the impact of the suffering they witness.

Caregivers often use humor as a means of maintaining some distance form the suffering to protect themselves from empathic pain. Gallows humor acknowledges the disgusting or intolerable aspects of a situation and then attempts to transform it into something lighthearted and amusing. People's ability to laugh in this type of situation provides them with a monetary release form the intensity of what might otherwise be overwhelming. They are able to maintain their balance and professional composure so that they may continue to offer their therapeutic skills

So according to the training for medical professionals it is indeed necessary as coping mechanism.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
When I was a lab aid for anatomy, a nurse student asked how to tell which side of the brain was the front. I held the brain in front of her, hoping she'd notice the attached eyeballs, but she didnt catch on until I said "here's looking at you, kid." then she screamed. And all the other nursing students laughed.
That was hilarious, Pete.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, as far as 'reasonable" and "profitable"
quote:
Four experts in the field of human tissue procurement told us the price range discussed in the video — $30 to $100 per patient — represents a reasonable fee. “There’s no way there’s a profit at that price,” said Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository.”
So very clearly, no profit is being made in the opinion of the experts.

As far as informed consent, I believe the patients are asked if they want to donate tissue.

A better legal analogy is the lawyer asking the client if he would like transcripts of the discussion so the client can donate the transcripts to a law library. The lawyer is reimbursed for the transcripts, and those reimbursements have been shown to be reasonable.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  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 
V, again the issue i see is NOT corporate profit, but conflict of interest of the attending physician. The tapes indicate that effort and priority must be given to retrieving intact "desired" organs in "desirable" condition.

Remember, when some states tried to enact laws that required late term abortion providers to try, as best as they could without compromising mom's health, to extract the fetus alive ... PP and NARAL shrieked that this created a medical conflict of interest that would compromise women's health.

Why would the same not be true of the effort to extract desirable organs from the procedure?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 Wayward Son:
Alas, km, you know it's never been about facts and reality. Innuendo is more than sufficient. No conservative cares whether they find any evidence. They have all the evidence they need in their heads. [Frown]

What libel. Grow up.
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 
So, just to be clear, here: you are offended to the point of calling it libel when someone accuses conservatives of not caring about finding evidence?

Heh.

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 velcro:
Seriati,

It seems like all you are saying is that the reimbursement that PP gets for providing fetal tissue samples seems excessive, and that you would like to see audits of those charges. Is that an accurate summary?

No. I never made a judgment about whether they "seem excessive". Personally, I doubt they are excessive.

I said that the video's provide enough evidence to support an investigation into whether there is profit in the practice.

I do think I would be in favor of a compliance regime with audits for something this sensitive.
quote:
If so, you are perfectly justified in that desire. But in order for regulators to act on that, there should be reasonable doubt as to whether the reimbursement is excessive.
Well not necessarily. A compliance regime, like we have for example with food preparation centers licensing, does not require any level of doubt before regulators get involved.

But I think there's enough evidence here that only a negligent member of law enforcement would not investigate. They may, reasonably, conclude there isn't probable cause and stop investigating at that point, but that should be a good faith judgment that they make.
quote:
Freezing tissues properly requires training, equipment, and time.
Yes, but the training involved is widely available and there are any number of people qualified to do it.
quote:
Preserving tissues during a procedure, while not compromising patient safety, requires training, equipment, and time in excess of what would be needed if tissues were not preserved.
I am not sure, by the way, that this is true for an abortion procedure. Nor am I sure that doing so, if it could endanger or even risk danger to the mother, is consistent with the ethical duties of the doctor to the woman.

But even if you could satisfy those issues, I don't think you could make a very convincing argument that it requires a higher threshold of training that the people licensed to perform medical procedures already undergo.
quote:
People qualified to do these highly technical tasks generally get paid reasonably well, with benefits, vacation, etc.
Well the latter do, aren't they typically doctors?
quote:
Equipment to perform these tasks is fairly specialized and does not benefit from high volumes or competition to bring down costs.
Which goes even further to the argument that PP should not incur the cost of obtaining it, if they sole use is for preserving fetal carcasses and tissues, unless they are willing to strictly comply with the laws.
quote:
Do you disagree with those statements?
To some degree, but not entirely. I disagree that they are relevant to the question of whether PP has to incur the costs or whether a third party could do so.

And I disagree that they have any relevance to whether or not PP has to comply with the law if they do incur such costs.
quote:
I stipulate that these costs, plus shipping costs, can add up to between $30 and $200, depending on the situation. Is it reasonable for you to doubt those figures?
Yes. It's completely reasonable to doubt the figures, they're made up. And as I've already asserted, accounting for costs involves a ton of discretion. How much of the tech's cost is only used for tissue transmittal? Do they have any other duties? Is the freezer only for these tissues? Etc.
quote:
If you doubt those figures, please explain why you doubt them.
Well they're made up. They aren't necessarily reasonable allocations. They include financial items that aren't directly applicable to the process.
quote:
Please note that the burden is on you to provide justification for reasonable doubt.
Please note, there is no burden on anyone to provide justification for reasonable doubt. That's not the standard that applies, nor does it have any logical basis in connection with whether we investigate someone.
quote:
If it were the responsibility of PP, or other businesses, to dispel reasonable doubt to prevent audits, then every aspect of every business would be audited until proof was provided that no audit was justified.
How do you think actual audits work? Do you think the IRS has proof of something wrong before they audit someone? Lol.

I've raised the question several times about who should bear the burden here. And all of you have either refused to answer or dodged it (I give DonaldD partial credit for addressing it though).
quote:
(Banks and other institutions where confidence is critical, or where the stakes are high, or where there is a history of pervasive fraud are another story)
Which includes, just so we're on the same page, every business in a "building" as they are all subject to fire inspections, those with or without buildings are subject to tax audits, any business with a license is subject to inspections related to its licensing. Heck even businesses that are exempt from licensing can be subject to inspections and/or audits.

In reality, in this country, most businesses of any type are subject to multiple "probable cause-free" inspection regimes. Not just "high stakes" businesses. And frankly the idea that transacting in human tissues for money should not be looked at, in our modern excessively regulated world, seems completely nonsensical.
quote:
So if you have no justification to doubt the reimbursement values, then by all means, continue to desire an audit. But please don't expect other people to share that desire.
I don't expect people to share my desire. I'm just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy on the left of pushing for more government and more regulation on just about everything, but demanding that their be proof of wrong doing before the government can even investigate this situation (which by the way is not remotely the correct standard for investigation).
quote:
am going out on a limb here, and saying that those who continue to claim there is a profit motive are ignoring proven facts, are arguing in bad faith, and wasting the time of people who expend effort refuting lies.
You are way out on a limb to claim there are proven facts. And you're even further on a limb to claim bad faith arguments.

If you don't wish to engage in debate then don't do so.
quote:
I think Mod should deter people from arguing in bad faith.
Lol. In other words, please ban people I disagree with. Thank you for your "reasoned" opinion.
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 TomDavidson:
So, just to be clear, here: you are offended to the point of calling it libel when someone accuses conservatives of not caring about finding evidence?

Heh.

Yes. I find passive aggressive insults and lies about "conservatives" posted to threads to be insulting and libelous. Particularly with the implication that posters making those arguments in good faith don't care about evidence.

We had a number of similar complaints from people on the left a few years back if I recall.

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 find passive aggressive insults...
To be fair, that looks like a pretty straight-up insult; I wouldn't call it "passive-aggressive" at all.

quote:
I find passive aggressive insults and lies about "conservatives" posted to threads to be insulting and libelous.
But merely asserting that there's "grounds for investigation" into something is not, obviously? So were someone to suggest that there might be grounds to investigate whether conservatives care about evidence, you'd have to nod shyly and concede the point? [Wink]
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:
quote:
I find passive aggressive insults...
To be fair, that looks like a pretty straight-up insult; I wouldn't call it "passive-aggressive" at all.
The "passive-aggressive" part is in the implication it applies to people posting in the thread.
quote:
quote:
I find passive aggressive insults and lies about "conservatives" posted to threads to be insulting and libelous.
But merely asserting that there's "grounds for investigation" into something is not, obviously?
Is anyone insulted by me asserting there are grounds to investigate? Seriously?

And what would the libel be? I didn't say anyone was guilty of any wrong-doing, in fact, I've gone to some lengths to not make any such accusation.
quote:
So were someone to suggest that there might be grounds to investigate whether conservatives care about evidence, you'd have to nod shyly and concede the point?
More likely I'd dispute that there is any group [conservatives] for which such an assertion applies as a blanket truth or untruth. If you want to investigate, go right ahead, but I doubt you have an interest in actually trying to show that such a statement is true about all or even a majority of conservatives (or could rationally construct and implement a test that would be conclusive on the point, and that was distinguishable from a result that would apply to all humans).
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes. I find passive aggressive insults and lies about "conservatives" posted to threads to be insulting and libelous. Particularly with the implication that posters making those arguments in good faith don't care about evidence.
The problem, Serati, is that this whole thread (or at least the latest part of it) is based on the innuendo that Planned Parenthood is making a profit--a hefty profit at that--on the illegal sale of fetus body parts, based primarily on heavily-edited footage of secretly-filmed conversations. And based on this, many conservatives, including presidential candidates, are ready to completely defund Planned Parenthood, even in states where they currently do not do abortions.

Does that sound to you like a movement that is seriously concerned about facts and evidence? [Wink]

However, I don't wish to imply that anyone on this board is not concerned with facts and evidence. That is one of the things about this board that is so good: that we all try to support our positions with facts and evidence, rather than rely on innuendo.

But rather than scream "Libel!" over the accusation, wouldn't it be better to prove it wrong? Or at least pledge that, if no evidence is found within a reasonable period of time, after a reasonable number of good investigations have occurred, that you will admit that the charge of profiteering was probably overblown? That would speak louder than complaints.

Because whether you know it or not, the movement that you get your information from has no such scruples. They will continue to "investigate" accusations long after any reasonable period when new evidence could be found, spending millions in taxpayer dollars to do so. They will continue to spread innuendo, even after it has been disproven. And, best of all, they will continually, unironically accuse their opponents of being stupid, uninformed, immoral, illogical liars.

Frankly, I'm sick of it. [Mad]

This whole edited-video scandal is emblematic of how far the Conservative movement has fallen. That so many conservatives willy buy into the libelous videos that imply (without ever stating, and without any corroborating evidence) that an organization they hate is breaking the law. And, believe me, long after this scandal has died down, after it is obvious that there is no evidence of any wrong-doing, the Conservative Media will continue to bring this up as an example of how evil and corrupt Planned Parenthood, and liberals in general, are. They've done it before on other unproven scandals. There's no reason they won't do it again.

So while I understand why you are concerned about libel and how you and Conservatives in general are perhaps being treated unfairly, also consider how this whole "scandal" is libelous and treats Planned Parenthood and those of us who believe in the right of a woman to have control of her body unfairly. And how outrage at unfounded accusations rings hollow in this case.

There is plenty of outrage to go around. [Mad]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  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 didn't say anyone was guilty of any wrong-doing, in fact, I've gone to some lengths to not make any such accusation.
What I don't understand is that you seem to think this makes you look fair-minded, when in reality it makes you look weaselly. You realize that when Fox News reports stuff like "people are SAYING..." that they can't actually hide behind the fact that some people are saying it; it doesn't absolve them of irresponsibly reporting falsehood and innuendo.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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:
So, just to be clear, here: you are offended to the point of calling it libel when someone accuses conservatives of not caring about finding evidence?

Heh.

With your 14 year track record of calling someone a bigot whenever they take any position that's marginally more conservative than you, i hardly think you're the one to point out that Seriati errerd when he called wayward's mindless hate speech bromide "libel." since the American political left is such an inbred echo chamber, it's more than possible that wayward could actually believe the crap he spouted about conservatives, without sociopathic disregard for accuracy.

The same mass disease of echo chamber gets conservatives to rally to de fund planned parenthood without even contemplating the VAST increase of abortions that would ensue as birth control suddenly became unaffordable to hundreds of thousands.

Definition of . ****ing idiot: conservative that wants to cut down on anchor babies AND wants america to stop subsidizing birth control for illegal immigrants. [DOH] [DOH]

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:
With your 14 year track record of calling someone a bigot whenever they take any position that's marginally more conservative than you...
To be fair, I have never called someone a bigot for gun-nuttery or rapacious corporatism. [Wink]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So while I understand why you are concerned about libel and how you and Conservatives in general are perhaps being treated unfairly, also consider how this whole "scandal" is libelous and treats Planned Parenthood and those of us who believe in the right of a woman to have control of her body unfairly. And how outrage at unfounded accusations rings hollow in this case.
Very well put.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
[S]ince the American political left is such an inbred echo chamber, it's more than possible that wayward could actually believe the crap he spouted about conservatives, without sociopathic disregard for accuracy.
I do believe it, and how much the Left is an inbred echo chamber is irrelevant. The Right has sociopathic disregard for accuracy. Whether the Left does too does not diminish the Right's disregard, just like my sins do not diminish yours.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Alas, km, you know it's never been about facts and reality. Innuendo is more than sufficient. No conservative cares whether they find any evidence. They have all the evidence they need in their heads. [Frown]

What libel. Grow up.
You realize that was simple trolling don't you? Don't feed the trolls.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  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 
G#, I certainly hope you're enjoying the irony as you generate it. [Smile]
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 Wayward Son:
quote:
Yes. I find passive aggressive insults and lies about "conservatives" posted to threads to be insulting and libelous. Particularly with the implication that posters making those arguments in good faith don't care about evidence.
The problem, Serati, is that this whole thread (or at least the latest part of it) is based on the innuendo that Planned Parenthood is making a profit--a hefty profit at that--on the illegal sale of fetus body parts, based primarily on heavily-edited footage of secretly-filmed conversations.
And which of my arguments imply that there is a "hefty profit" involved. All I asserted, in a zero tolerance kind of way, is that there is enough there to investigate.
quote:
And based on this, many conservatives, including presidential candidates, are ready to completely defund Planned Parenthood, even in states where they currently do not do abortions.
And did I suggest defunding Planned Parenthood for this? The most likely result of any investigation given the numbers involved, if any violation was even found, would be that PP would be found to have been negligent in a violation of the rule. You'd expect a cease and desist letter (of the over charging not the procedure).

Now if an investigation turned up intentional profiteering, you might see criminal charges.

But it's all speculation at this point.
quote:
Does that sound to you like a movement that is seriously concerned about facts and evidence? [Wink]
Nope, now have you cross checked that with every member of the "conservative" group you are maligning? I have no doubt that some politicians are morons. Nor is there any doubt that many people do NOT believe any abortion provider should be subsidized with government money. Neither here, nor there though.
quote:
But rather than scream "Libel!" over the accusation, wouldn't it be better to prove it wrong?
No honestly it would not be better to prove it wrong. Claims about "all" or "none" of a certain group have about zero inherent validity. They are exceptional claims that require exceptional proof.

As Pete pointed out, and I thought about, what you said isn't really libelous, it's hyperbole, but I didn't mind responding with hyperbole of my own.
quote:
Or at least pledge that, if no evidence is found within a reasonable period of time, after a reasonable number of good investigations have occurred, that you will admit that the charge of profiteering was probably overblown? That would speak louder than complaints.
I never really thought they were profiteering. What I thought is that it's an incredibly touchy subject and moronic to even appear to skirt the line. And for a group to even put themselves in the position by being cavalier about it is incredibly stupid. Frankly, this is an area where respect for human life ought to be enough to act with dignity at all times.

I have a friend who tells a story about a fellow medical student, who, as a prank, attached a certain organ from a cadaver to the outside of his pants. And while I can appreciate that it might be very funny, it still represents a profound disrespect of humanity and insult to the person that donated their body.
quote:
Because whether you know it or not, the movement that you get your information from has no such scruples.
Just wow. I'm not stupid enough to get my information exclusively from any movement, nor to take their position just because they shout about it. That doesn't mean that it's reasonable to ignore something because of the source.
quote:
They will continue to "investigate" accusations long after any reasonable period when new evidence could be found, spending millions in taxpayer dollars to do so.
Yes both sides do this.
quote:
They will continue to spread innuendo, even after it has been disproven.
War on Women? Racist dog whistling?
quote:
And, best of all, they will continually, unironically accuse their opponents of being stupid, uninformed, immoral, illogical liars.
Should I just say, I know you are but what am I?
quote:
This whole edited-video scandal is emblematic of how far the Conservative movement has fallen.
No, its emblamatic of how the media cycle can dominate what people ascribe to a movement, and how politicians milk it. Which is EXACTLY why claims about "all conservatives" are insulting and stupid nonsense. This is an election cycle, its going to be painful enough without everyone jumping to ascribe motives to every post and poster based on their own made up beliefs about the "other sides" true motivations.
quote:
That so many conservatives willy buy into the libelous videos that imply (without ever stating, and without any corroborating evidence) that an organization they hate is breaking the law.
And the truth is they may have been, they may not have been, but it likely comes down to an accounting treatment.
quote:
And, believe me, long after this scandal has died down, after it is obvious that there is no evidence of any wrong-doing, the Conservative Media will continue to bring this up as an example of how evil and corrupt Planned Parenthood, and liberals in general, are.
So because you think that PP is attributable to all liberals (presumably including yourself) and they are being maligned as evil (which through further implication includes yourself) its okay to engage in the exact same tactic with respect to whole groups of other people?
quote:
They've done it before on other unproven scandals. There's no reason they won't do it again.
Which is true for ALL HUMANS not just conservatives.
quote:
So while I understand why you are concerned about libel and how you and Conservatives in general are perhaps being treated unfairly, also consider how this whole "scandal" is libelous and treats Planned Parenthood and those of us who believe in the right of a woman to have control of her body unfairly.
I'm not pro-life, and I don't feel the least bit like I'm responsible for PP's choices. I'm not sure why anyone would personalize PP unless they worked for them.

And I don't even feel like PP is being treated unfairly in this thread. There is a specific law that prohibits selling human organs, even those of an aborted fetus. It's not a hypothetical argument, it's not an argument about the morality of the abortion, or the morality of fetal tissue research. It's a straight forward argument about whether their charges exceed their direct costs (illegal) or not (not illegal). And not one person on this thread has the data to answer that question, and not a single person on your side has explained why its unreasonable to get that data and answer the question other than "really bad people with evil intent brought the questions to light." So what? Should we not investigate rape if the accuser is a prostitute? Should we not investigate tax fraud if the filer says they didn't commit fraud?

I asked a set of simple questions, should this be a compliance regime or an investigatory regime, and if the latter what level of evidence is required to investigate. If you're not willing to pony up an answer you've got a lot of nerve even implying I'm not interested in the facts.
quote:
And how outrage at unfounded accusations rings hollow in this case.

There is plenty of outrage to go around. [Mad]

Be outraged, but be civil, I didn't do anything to you.
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:
not a single person on your side has explained why its unreasonable to get that data and answer the question
Here's the thing: Planned Parenthood regularly undergoes audits to satisfy that question. In the same way, your taxes are routinely examined. You are asserting that if someone produced an edited video in which someone said, over dinner, that it would be nice if you committed tax fraud, and you shook your head and said that, no, you would never commit tax fraud, the IRS would have grounds to start a special investigation above and beyond their usual methods.

Remember, those of us disgusted by this have seen it before. It's exactly the same methodology used to attack ACORN, which was dismantled and defunded before it was eventually shown to be completely innocent of wrongdoing.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati,

Thanks for your response of 8/24 3:49 PM.
quote:
I said that the video's provide enough evidence to support an investigation into whether there is profit in the practice.
It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that there is, in fact, no profit in the practice. As you well know, four experts in the field have been consulted, and the figures quoted for reimbursement have been judged to be reasonable. You provide no rebuttal to those expert opinions, only insisting that the numbers are made up.

Very clearly, you refuse to acknowledge proof when provided.

You are arguing in bad faith.

I wrote
quote:
I think Mod should deter people from arguing in bad faith. (See "Civilized Discourse" thread) Not as a way to shut down opposition, but to keep the machinery of discussion working smoothly. there are limits to speech, when the purpose of speech is to obfuscate earnest communication. Further insistence that up is down, or PP is making a profit, is sand in the gears of Ornery.

Oh, and it should go without saying that if the actual facts presented were in question, for example the four experts were not actually experts, or something was taken out of context, that is well within the bounds of arguing in good faith.

Again, I do not want to stifle discussion. I want to stifle comments that ignore proven facts. And yes, I do believe in objective truth in some cases. This is one of them.

You quoted my first line, but left out the rest. And here is your response to the cherry-picked out of context quote:

quote:
In other words, please ban people I disagree with. Thank you for your "reasoned" opinion.
Very clearly, you take quotes out of context to distort them. Not only that but you intentionally misrepresent my intentions, even though I have made them crystal clear.

You are arguing in bad faith.

I don't think it can be made any clearer. I hope Mod takes action to prevent further disregard of proven facts, intentional distortion of quotes, and misrepresentation of my intentions.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 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 velcro:
quote:
I said that the video's provide enough evidence to support an investigation into whether there is profit in the practice.
It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that there is, in fact, no profit in the practice.
It has not been proven at all. It's been asserted, by people whose expertise you accept. However, you're committing the fallacy of argument from authority here.

I have sufficient expertise of my own in the field of accounting to assert that their opinions are just that. The only dispositive evidence is in the records of PP. As I said from the beginning, I have no doubt that they can make the accounting appear as if there is no profit (legally), but that the appropriate measure would be the gross margin over the variable costs.
quote:
As you well know, four experts in the field have been consulted, and the figures quoted for reimbursement have been judged to be reasonable. You provide no rebuttal to those expert opinions, only insisting that the numbers are made up.
There is no basis for estimates on this. They have provided no facts. Therefore, your assertion that they have provided unassailable evidence is nonsense.
quote:
Very clearly, you refuse to acknowledge proof when provided.
No, I acknowledge proof, but I also have enough reading comprehension to tell the difference between opinions and facts.
quote:
You are arguing in bad faith.
So No. Not bad faith.
quote:
I wrote
quote:
I think Mod should deter people from arguing in bad faith. (See "Civilized Discourse" thread) Not as a way to shut down opposition, but to keep the machinery of discussion working smoothly. there are limits to speech, when the purpose of speech is to obfuscate earnest communication. Further insistence that up is down, or PP is making a profit, is sand in the gears of Ornery.
I read you the first time. Like I said, it boils down to ban those who disagree with you.
quote:
Again, I do not want to stifle discussion. I want to stifle comments that ignore proven facts.
Then provide relevant "proven facts". Providing expert testimony, requires that the experts actual be on point and that it not be rebutted. The first is of limited validity here where there are actual facts, hence no need for estimates. The second, is like I said, within my own knowledge rebuttable.
quote:
[QUOTE]In other words, please ban people I disagree with. Thank you for your "reasoned" opinion.
Very clearly, you take quotes out of context to distort them. Not only that but you intentionally misrepresent my intentions, even though I have made them crystal clear.
No, I just think calls for banning people who are actually arguing in good faith by motive speculation that they are arguing in bad faith is repugnant. You should consider whether you are living in a glass house before throwing stones.
quote:
You are arguing in bad faith.
Again no.
quote:
I don't think it can be made any clearer. I hope Mod takes action to prevent further disregard of proven facts, intentional distortion of quotes, and misrepresentation of my intentions.
Or rampant motive speculation?

No proven fact has been disregarded.

No quote was changed in the least.

And the only "misrepresentation" of you intentions is my own opinion about what it means to call for a mod to take action against posters "arguing in bad faith."

So again, no.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati, why would you be in favor of "investigations" when the evidence is produced the way this video evidence was produced? i.e. by political operatives who troll shamelessly for sound bites they can then strip of context in order to deceive and generate outrage?

By saying this justifies investigations, you might as well be saying that our politicians and administrators should allow their agenda to be set by dishonest political schemers.

Because: the facts that they are supposedly revealing do not show that the law has been violated. They are entirely compatible with the law, once the context is restored. How can this justify investigations?

If you think the law should require a higher degree of active monitoring and audits of this particular activity, that's different from saying that they should be investigated as a result of these videos.

[ August 25, 2015, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 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:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I dont see profit as a problem so much as informed consent. Regardless of whether pp profits, the doctor is getting paid for the procedure, and it seems to me that there's a conflict of interest between the Dr's interest in patient health vs interest in retrieving usable body parts. Analogous to a lawyer that takes a case because he wants to write a book about it.

Since the patient in question has to request the donation and sign consent forms, that concern is still as moot as it was when that was pointed out to you every other time you asserted that concern.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And which of my arguments imply that there is a "hefty profit" involved. All I asserted, in a zero tolerance kind of way, is that there is enough there to investigate.
Well, Serita, you're not the only conservative on this thread, and you certainly are not the only conservative in the nation. [Smile]

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And based on this, many conservatives, including presidential candidates, are ready to completely defund Planned Parenthood, even in states where they currently do not do abortions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And did I suggest defunding Planned Parenthood for this? The most likely result of any investigation given the numbers involved, if any violation was even found, would be that PP would be found to have been negligent in a violation of the rule. You'd expect a cease and desist letter (of the over charging not the procedure).

Now if an investigation turned up intentional profiteering, you might see criminal charges.

But it's all speculation at this point.

That is an admirable position to take, but if you noticed, I was not directly addressing you. I was addressing the movement, or should I say, category in general. Sentators, pundits, Presidential candidates. Those crying out to burn Planned Parenthood at the stake right now, before any thorough investigation has been done.

Are they, or are they not, Conservatives? Do they, or do they not, speak for a large number of those who self-identify themselves as Conservative?

If they are not Conservatives, then what should I call them? How do you differentiate yourself from them?

quote:
Nope, now have you cross checked that with every member of the "conservative" group you are maligning?
This is an example the problem of characterizing groups. Not every member of a group believes the same thing; but they all band together, and support each other, to advance their agenda. So in some ways they all bear responsibility for the group's accomplishments.

Now you seem to acknowledge that these videos do not prove that Planned Parenthood is doing criminal acts, and that more investigation is needed before action should be taken. So what do you say about those who are calling for the disbandment of PP based on those videos? Who are advancing legislation to defund PP, based on these videos? Who are using them as proof that PP is a vile, criminal organization? Do you stand with them? Do you support them? Are they part of your group?

If you embrace and support them, and call them Conservatives, then you are embracing and supporting what they are trying to do. If you do not, then make that clear. And don't be offended if I call them Conservatives, since that is what they call themselves.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They will continue to "investigate" accusations long after any reasonable period when new evidence could be found, spending millions in taxpayer dollars to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes both sides do this.

Yes, but I would say one side does it more than the other right now, although I do acknowledge that this does not excuse either side. Feel free to criticize such behavior when you see it.

I understand that you don't want to be associated with those Conservatives who are trying to ACORN Planned Parenthood with these tapes, who are actively striving to destroy PP based on lies, innuendo and jumped-to conclusions. But you and they share the same title of the same group. So if you continue to take these criticisms personally, may I suggest changing the title you use for your political stance?

Or, in the very least, provide me with a name for those who are doing the lying with an appropriate title I can use in the future. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wayward, this line of yours began by sounding like hyperbole, but has now gone off the deep end. You're saying someone should 'change his title' when others who call themselves by the same title do something objectionable? Do you likewise think someone who calls himself a 'Christian' should cease calling himself a Christian when any Christian group does something he doesn't believe in? This sounds remarkably like a No True Scotsman position that you are trying to interject onto others.

But more to the point, is "conservative" a club that one joins and subscribes to, adopting their tenets as one's own? Or is it merely a label vaguely correlating various views from all kinds of people? Contrast with the term "Republican", which is a specific group that a person can join (or register with, or vote for) that believes in certain things and where if you vote for them you are signing on for the things they believe in. You choose to be Republican, whereas 'conservative' is a term that can be applied to people but for which they don't sign up. They may call themselves that, yes, but that doesn't make it a club that one can or should renounce any more than being a sci-fi fan is something I should renounce if other sci-fi fans do bad things.

On a side note it's ridiculous to assign guilt by association to someone for things he hasn't done, and to blame him for the existence of rampant tribalism and partisan politics.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati says:
quote:
There is no basis for estimates on this. They have provided no facts.
quote:
We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit. Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price.” She continued in an email:
Sawyer, July 20: In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.

Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office of Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit.”

Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” ‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”

Seriati wrote:
quote:
No proven fact has been disregarded.
Here's the fact:
Industry experts agree vociferously that $30 to $100 is extremely unlikely to be enough to make a profit for PP. In other words, the totality of the expert opinions brought forward in this discussion agree that doubt about PP making a profit is not at all reasonable.

Do you deny this fact? You certainly never acknowledged it. I'd say you disregarded it.

For reasonable people, that fact is enough to dispel doubt that PP is making a profit.

If, however, someone has decided that PP is making a profit with the sole evidence being the completely worthless video, then nothing short of a complete top-to-bottom audit will eliminate doubt. And even then, believing the auditors may be "committing the fallacy of argument from authority."
--------------
quote:
No quote was changed in the least.
You deny changing a quote. Great, I never accused you of that. You took my quote out of context, but did not change it.

I said:
quote:
I think Mod should deter people from arguing in bad faith. (See "Civilized Discourse" thread) Not as a way to shut down opposition...
You said:
quote:
"I think Mod should deter people from arguing in bad faith." Lol. In other words, please ban people I disagree with.
You removed the sentence that made my first sentence clear, and added your own interpretation of the first sentence that was the exact opposite.

Do you deny this charge?

Finally, I never used the word ban. Your repeated attribution of that word to me shows how what I wrote and what you wrote have no logical relationship. You took my quote out of context, and attributed a statement to me that I never made.

If someone comes on Ornery and for every post just repeats "I don't care what you say, I am right all the time!!!", then I think Mod should take action to deter that sort of behavior. I don't care if it is talking to them, editing their posts, suspending them, banning them, or paying them to stop it. I just want it to stop.

So please retract your statement that I called for anyone to be banned for anything.

And please stop taking my quotes out of context and reinterpreting them to be the opposite of what they were in context.

And please stop insisting that there is reasonable cause to believe PP is making a profit when you have credible expert testimony to the contrary and literally not a shred of credible evidence to support it.

If you do have a shred, please show it. And if you call the video credible, well, that says a lot about your credibility.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wayward, this line of yours began by sounding like hyperbole, but has now gone off the deep end. You're saying someone should 'change his title' when others who call themselves by the same title do something objectionable? Do you likewise think someone who calls himself a 'Christian' should cease calling himself a Christian when any Christian group does something he doesn't believe in? This sounds remarkably like a No True Scotsman position that you are trying to interject onto others.
Well, sometimes going off the deep end is the only alternative when someone's painted you into a corner. [Smile]

To summarize Serati's argument, he has taken offense because I have characterized Conservatives in a certain way, and he does not see himself being that way. Thus, he tells me that I cannot characterize Conservatives that way.

But he has not disputed that some Conservatives do act that way. And not just some minor sub-group, but the leaders: Senators, Congressmen, Presidential candidates, pundits. The movers and the shakers of the movement/ideology/group. He even agrees that there is no justification for those Conservatives to act that way.

So what am I to think? Because he and those he knows disagree with the way the group is moving, then the group is not moving that way? Because he does not behave the way the leaders and followers of the group behave, then the group does not behave that way? That we cannot say anything about a group because not everyone in the group agrees about everything? [Eek!]

If he aligned with the group and the group is doing something he strongly disagrees with (so strongly, he takes offense at someone pointing it out), then he needs to disassociate himself with that group. He can either assign them a different name, or assign himself a different name. But if he insists on keeping the same name with the same group, then he will be associated with that group's activities, whether he wants to (or deserves to) or not.

And certainly if he continues to actively support the group, then he will be actively supporting the parts he disagrees with, too.

I won't dispute that he hasn't taken certain stances on this thread. But if he won't dispute that Conservatives in general, and Conservative leaders in specific, aren't taking those stances, then he can't complain about me pointing out those stances just because he doesn't hold them. He needs to differentiate himself from those with those stances. And right now, I have no language to make that differentiation.

If a vast majority of Christians believe the sabbath is on Sunday, you can't criticize someone for saying Christians believe in a Sunday Sabbath just because you believe in a Saturday Sabbath. Because you're not like other Christians in that respect. So, let's use language to highlight the differenece.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Conservatism" is not a political faction no matter how much you want to say it is. If you have a problem with the Republican party that's a different matter. The fact that many conservatives may have found they must ally themselves with the Republican party to have a political voice is an entirely different matter, and also a different subject with its own problems. There is no such thing as a "conservative leader", and no person who believes in conservative values should have to answer for what political idiots do. Now, if you register as a Republican then you're totally open to criticism for what Republicans do since you're giving them your avowed support and your political voice.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wayward,

FWIW, Republicans have been identifying as less conservative, even as Republican elected officials have become more conservative. Source

Fenring,
Having said that, if you look at CPAC and conservative news sites, they seem to share a lot of the characteristics of Republican leadership, so I think there is a lot in common. Even if rank and file conservatives don't agree, the public face of conservatism looks pretty much like the public face of elected Republicans.

So if I were a moderate Republican, I would be hesitant to label myself conservative, and I would work to make the Republican leadership more like the rank and file.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Conservatism" is not a political faction no matter how much you want to say it is.
I can see where you're coming from with this (it's an ideology, not a movement/group/political faction), but I'm not convinced that it doesn't work like one.

Let me think about this for a bit...

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wayward,

Let me put it in a more common sense sort of way. Being Republican strictly refers to your political preference, and by implication may put you in line with views that conservatives express. The alignment of "Republican" with "conservative" in these views may be very similar at times and not as similar at other times, with the proviso that it won't ever be that far away since conservatives don't really have another party that aligns with their views much at all.

But to whatever extent the party's views may align with conservative beliefs, being a conservative can have many aspects to it including interpretation of law, family values, economic beliefs, religious beliefs, level of openness to social experimentation, value held on things like tradition and heritage, and can perhaps even apply to things as banal as choice of food and clothing and the kind of car you drive. None of these is the criterion for being a conservative, and probably the intersection of at least several of these categories might make a person recognize similarity between his lifestyle and someone else's. Being conservative doesn't require being political at all and one's sense of being conservative (or of viewing someone else as comparatively conservative) ought not be impacted by how looney or sensible the Republican party is at any given time.

By attacking conservatism you're attacking an entire way of life and a huge swathe of good people who don't have anything to do with the things that upset you. On the other hand if you want to go ahead and attach all manner of epithets to a major political party then all the power to you and you certainly have my blessing. I would even more strongly recommend attacking the system that created the current Republican party in the first place, but in any event surely you can see that singling out a type of human being in a rant amounts to little more than hate rhetoric, notwithstanding the fact that I understand fully the type of behavior that's pissing you off.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

How do you address the public face of conservatism, e.g. CPAC, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Drudge, etc.?

These regularly espouse the opinions that Wayward is criticizing.

One may think he is conservative, but if all the visible conservatives have different ideas than him, then it may be time to change how he identifies himself.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
How do you address the public face of conservatism, e.g. CPAC, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Drudge, etc.?

I haven't done extensive lines of analysis on these so the best I could do would be a guess. But instead of guessing I'll just suggest following the money to determine who is owned by whom. Whichever base of operations has power to gain and money to wield is your source. Is it more likely that this source is a social mindset, or a political faction?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Makes sense. So the public face of conservatism is driven by Republicans, because they have the money and power.

That seems to say that, at least externally, the behavior of conservatives is the same as that of the Republican leadership. So while technically conservatism is an ideology, as a practical matter it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  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 
In this case, at least, Seriati is supporting the agenda of those that want to shut down PP. Even if Seriati doesn't think there is necessarily something wrong going on, he is adding weight to that side of the argument. Much the same as those people who supported the birthers with their "I would love to know more" and “I don’t know. I really don’t know. I don’t know why he wouldn’t release his records.”
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think you make a good point, Fenring. You can't really blame all Conservatives for the failings of a few, even if those few make a large portion of self-described Conservatives, if not a majority.

But they are still a recognizable group that should be held accountable for their actions.

So from here on I'll try to refer to them a "radical Conservatives"--those Conservatives who are so into the movement that they are willing to use innuendo, smear, and lies to advance their moral argument. (You know, there really should be a word for those who will compromise their morals in order to spread their moral values. I'd use "hypocritical," except that integrity is not a requirement to be a Conservative, and can be part of any ideology.)

I hope this is acceptable term to avoid confusion in the future.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
Makes sense. So the public face of conservatism is driven by Republicans, because they have the money and power.

That seems to say that, at least externally, the behavior of conservatives is the same as that of the Republican leadership. So while technically conservatism is an ideology, as a practical matter it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party.

I don't see how you get from "public face of conservatism" to "the behavior of conservatives." You've thrown in a hidden premise to connect these two, and it's a wrong one. The very phrase "public face of conservatism" almost implies by definition that it is not actually conservatism but a a dumbshow or facade meant to look like it represents conservatism. You've simply bought into the ad campaign.

Wayward, I think that correction is in the right spirit.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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 Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I dont see profit as a problem so much as informed consent. Regardless of whether pp profits, the doctor is getting paid for the procedure, and it seems to me that there's a conflict of interest between the Dr's interest in patient health vs interest in retrieving usable body parts. Analogous to a lawyer that takes a case because he wants to write a book about it.

Since the patient in question has to request the donation and sign consent forms, that concern is still as moot as it was when that was pointed out to you every other time you asserted that concern.
[DOH] Are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you actually believe that a patient signing a form allowing for the donation of "tissue" adequately informs the patient of the inherent conflict of interest, where her doctor's surgical decisions may contravene her survival interests, because the doctor is weighing the extraction of "desirable" tissues against the patient's life and health?

If you honestly believed in half of the principles that you purport to stand for, you should give this conflict of interest point more thought.

I don't know whether the forms properly inform the patient because I haven't read them. But if the forms do nothing more than authorize donation of tissue as you say, then they are ethically inadequate. As I suspect you would agree if you actually gave it some thought.

You see, Pyr, the difference between you and me is that I have no political affiliation and I think an issue through before picking sides, if I pick a side at all. Here, I'm against defunding Planned Parenthood because I think the net effect of doing so would be to increase both abortions and the number of kids in foster care, plus God knows how many children dead and abused on the way from parents that didn't want them, to the foster care system. But I'm concerned about this informed consent issue, partly because one of my inlaws and her two sisters lost their mother to a botched abortion from a sloppy doctor, and I have concerns about safety if doctors start seeing pregnant women as a source of "desirable" resources. It can be done in an ethical way that protects patient rights, but I'm curious if it is actually being done, and so far no one's presented any relevant facts.

[ August 26, 2015, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  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