This is topic Planned Parenthood exposed in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/14715.html

Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
A group called Live Action sent in a undercover reporter who posed as a pimp employing underage girls as young as 14 and 15. His goal was to get these girls setup for abortions, STD treatment, etc:
quote:
A Planned Parenthood manager in New Jersey coaches a man and a woman posing as sex traffickers how to secure secret abortions, STD testing, and contraception for their female underage sex slaves, and make their whole operation “look as legit as possible” in an undercover video released this morning.
So PP not only helped but also provided advice on how to make it appear legitimate. Live Action has exposed other PP offices with the same undercover approach:
quote:
• Falls Church – Abortions for underage girls from other countries only require a photo ID.

Planned Parenthood staffer: “We don’t necessarily look at the legal status, like I said. Abortion appointments do require photo ID. It’s nothing as far as records. It’s just photo ID that’s ever going to be required.”

• Roanoke – Birth control and STD testing for underage prostitutes is no problem

Planned Parenthood staffer: “From the age of 12 up, for birth control, you can just come in and do that. You don’t have to have a parent, OK?”

Planned Parenthood staffer discussing STD testing: “And the thing is, see this is the thing a lot of people don’t know that. . .Right, through the Health Department. And so, they’ll uh, they’ll track it. And they’re discreet. They’re confidential. They, you know, don’t tell people what’s going on, because – frankly – it’s nobody’s business.”

• Charlottesville – Birth control and testing for STDs and pregnancy for underage girls with no questions asked.

Planned Parenthood staffer: “Anybody here can help you. Everything here is confidential. We can’t give any information out.”

Yeah, great. Sexual exploitation of children is all cool at Planned Parenthood, they'll even help you keep it on the down low so it looks legitimate - what about pimping out children could even remotely look legitimate? I guess you just really have to love abortion enough that nothing else matters.

PP's response:
quote:
We were profoundly shocked when we viewed the videotape released this morning, which depicted an employee of one of our health centers behaving in a repugnant manner that is inconsistent with our standards of care and is completely unacceptable," Phyllis Kinsler, chief of Planned Parenthood of New Jersey, said in a statement. "The employee in the video was immediately suspended from her duties this morning and was terminated this evening."
Shocked! However, the pattern is well established. They're shocked they got caught ... again. That's all. Throw a few under the bus, try to manage the PR.

[ February 04, 2011, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
Of course PP also contacted the FBI to have them investigate the prostitution angle. Aside from that this is pretty much empty outrage over the fact that they provided essential health services to people that needed those services

If you go into an ER with a gunshot wound, the ER docs aren't going to ask who shot you as a precondition to treating you.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Yet in one tape they have the manager enthusiastically advising how to avoid legal detection. So PP says something, and that's your reality. PP does something, that's actual reality.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
If you go into an ER with a gunshot wound, the ER docs aren't going to ask who shot you as a precondition to treating you.

This is a bad analogy that only confuses the reality, abortion is not generally an emergent procedure nor is STD treatment. None of the alleged underage girls went in for treatment.

This was a pimp that went in for help to plan abortions and STD treatment for children and got that help.

[ February 04, 2011, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Ooo! Undercover pimps putting out edited tapes of them lying to social services agencies! It's like 2008 all over again!
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Ooo! Undercover pimps putting out edited tapes of them lying to social services agencies! It's like 2008 all over again!

Nope, the tapes are fully released in unedited format. You can see it all, in context. Nice try though.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
Not how to avoid legal detection, how to get girls medical treatment they need. And of course they don't talk about how the manager then proceeded to report the guy to investigators in case he wasn't just trolling.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
See, my point hinged on the whole "undercover pimps trying to 'sting' service agencies" crap. But you're welcome to worry about the unimportant part. [Smile]
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
Did PP contact the police, G2, yes or no? That should be independently verifiable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/01/AR2011020106135.html?hpid=moreheadlines

"At least 12 clinics in six states received visits in January by men claiming to be engaged in sex trafficking, according to Planned Parenthood. In each case, the clinic's staff notified federal and local authorities."

So in short, Planned Parenthood behaved as it should in every case, while your undercover pimps had to go to more than a dozen clinics in atleast 6 states before they managed to discover an employee that behaved inappropriately.

Do you know the words "selective reporting"?
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
G2, will you please stop attacking Planned Parenthood!?!

Don't you understand how beneficial they've been for the invaluable service they have provided in furthering the goals of the Arayan Nation, the White Power Militia Movement and the likes of Stormfront.org?

WHITE POWER!!!!!!
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Yeah, you know what? I know a lot of people who have, at one point or another, worked for Planned Parenthood, and not one of them has done so in order to reduce the number of non-whites out there.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Hence the term: useful idiots. [LOL]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
It's fascinating how Daruma claims to be post-partisan, to detest both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans to the same extent - yet reserves his venom solely for one side. I guess the old Bush dittohead Daruma is still around...

Yeah, Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. This is true. The GOP also used to be the black-friendlier party. Things change.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Well, to be fair, Daruma still hates feminists and rails against anything he associates with feminism. I imagine the latter is more to the point here than the former.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
http://www.lifeissues.org/connector/display.asp?page=05oct.htm

quote:
Margaret Sanger’s legacy to society is represented and promoted today by Planned Parenthood. For years, pro-life leaders have insisted that Planned Parenthood has targeted African Americans for abortion by placing their abortion facilities in black communities. Two separate studies relying on Census 2000 statistics verify that this claim is indeed supported by the data. Randy Hall of CNSNews published results of the first study in a Feb. 7, 2005 article, “Abortion Causing ‘Black Genocide,’ Activists Say.”7 Although Planned Parenthood does not provide a comprehensive list of its abortion facilities, Hall obtained the locations of 160 US Planned Parenthood abortion outlets from the website of Stop Planned Parenthood (STOPP) International. Hall compared the percentage of African Americans in the cities where these facilities were located to the percentage of African Americans living in that particular state. The results showed that 62.5% of these Planned Parenthood facilities were located in cities having a higher black percentage than the state.

In a separate study, initiated by Life Issues Institute, a similar set of Planned Parenthood abortion facilities that existed in 2002-2003 was obtained from Life Dynamics, Inc., an investigative pro-life organization. This set included 151 Planned Parenthood abortion outlets and their locations in the United States. Using Census 2000 Summary File 1, each facility location was analyzed for the percentage of African American residents within one-, three- and five-mile radiuses of the facility, respectively. The percentages within the appropriate abortion facility radiuses were compared to the African American percentage of the city where the facility was located. This would determine if there was any indication that the facility was placed in a more predominantly black neighborhood. In addition, the radius and city percentages were compared to the state percentage to see if either of these was higher than the state overall. Using this set of criteria, 60% of the abortion facilities had surrounding black populations that were measurably higher than either the city or the state average. Significantly, 34% of the facilities had a black population more than 5 percentage points higher than the surrounding city or state. Considering that African Americans comprise only 12.3% of the national population, this is a notable variance.


 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Can you think of no reason why the locations of reproductive planning clinics intended to provide services to the poor correlate strongly to locations populated by the poorest American demographic?
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Tom...your intellectual honesty and sense of fairness with regards to myself is unexpected and commendable. [Smile]

Ricky - Things change, eh?

Instead of just outright saying it was designed to reduce the black population, they couch it in friendly PC language...but keep doing it. Which is why most facilities are located close to minority communities.

You're so hung up on "left" vs. "right." I care not for your obsession with choosing sides. I only care for observable truth.

Oh, and **** the right wing too. When they had Bush and a GOP majority congress and the chance to nominate some justices to potentially overturn R vs.W, they paid lip service to the base and did nothing substantial.

Right vs. Left is meaningless on the abortion debate. Both have been co-opted to ensure the status quo and black genocide continues.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Can you think of no reason why the locations of reproductive planning clinics intended to provide services to the poor correlate strongly to locations populated by the poorest American demographic?

Sure, I could think about it. But why bother when you can read the words of the people like Sanger who founded the organization and promoted it?

I'll take her at her word. At least she was honest and forthright about what she and her cohorts at the ABCL intended.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
If you want to talk about "useful idiots," Daruma, you should talk about any White Supremacists who support Planned Parenthood to decrease the black population.

Black populations have been steadily growing along with their median incomes.

(Also note that, according to the site, the only significant rural black populations are in the South. Which means that "62.5% of these Planned Parenthood facilities were located in cities having a higher black percentage than the state" is entirely unsuprising, since most major cities would have higher black populations than the overall state. [Roll Eyes] )

If anyone thinks Planned Parenthood is hurting the black population, they really are "idiots." [LOL]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Wayward...you're clueless. You're not even useful if you are gonna rely on such a dumb argument. You completely failed to comprehend that I was really just being facetious and sarcastic about how abortion furthers the aims of White supremacists, merely to highlight the intent of the founders of PP.

But that went right over your head. [Roll Eyes]

I'll stick to the basic facts so as not to confuse you:

1)The founder of Planned Parenthood was quite open in her reasoning.

2) The majority of Planned Parenthood clinics in this country are located near black (and other minority) communities.

3) Black abortions are a disproportionate amount of abortions performed in comparison to the total population.

The fact that black demographics are increasing does not mitigate any of that.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
1) Genetic fallacy

2) Many social service agencies are going to be located near black and minority communities because those communities are the most likely to be unable to afford the services otherwise. I would bet you'll also find YMCAs more prevalent in poor/minority communities than elsewhere.

3) Again, correlates with income/education, not race.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Wayward...you're clueless. You're not even useful if you are gonna rely on such a dumb argument. You completely failed to comprehend that I was really just being facetious and sarcastic about how abortion furthers the aims of White supremacists, merely to highlight the intent of the founders of PP.
Considering how much you've argued over the current intent of the organization, it's hard to know how facetious you are being.

Fortunately it is obvious to even the most disinterested participant that the current aims of PP do not in any way coincide with your stated aims of the founder. (Your points 2 and 3 are easily explained by the rates of black poverty and the concentration of black populations, so they are totally unconvincing.) So bringing up the founder is merely sarcastic, and silly.

You have you clues, Daruma, but your addition is so bad they amount to nothing.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Margaret Sanger quotes:

quote:
"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."
Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

"Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives."
[no source available at this time...]

As an advocate of birth control I wish ... to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation....
On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.
Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics."
Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."
Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.

"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."
Margaret Sanger, quoted in Charles Valenza. "Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?" Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1985, page 44.

"The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped."
Margaret Sanger. Speech quoted in Birth Control: What It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do. The Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference. Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City, November 11-12, 1921. Published by the Birth Control Review, Gothic Press, pages 172 and 174.

"The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order..."
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

"[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children..."
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

"Give dysgenic groups [people with 'bad genes'] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization."
Margaret Sanger, April 1932 Birth Control Review.

"As we celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Sanger, our outrageous and our courageous leader, we will probably find a number of areas in which we may find more about Margaret Sanger than we thought we wanted to know..."
Faye Wattleton, Past-president of Planned Parenthood

Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, proposed the American Baby Code that states, "No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child… without a permit for parenthood".

Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, proposed the Population Congress with the aim, "...to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization."

So Matt and Wayward, we have your speculative assertion that PP clinics are only near black communities because black communities are poor...

...and we have the founder of the organization openly stating the motivation and goals of Planned Parenthood.

Keep telling yourselves whatever it is you do to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Planned Parenthood was and is a eugenics organization.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Yep, and the word "gay" means happy, because things don't change over time.

You as so gay, Daruma. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
What influence do you believe Margaret Sanger has on the placement of Planned Parenthood clinics, Daruma?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
So, of that list of quotes, only one actually refers to blacks, and that's in the context of preventing misinformation from spreading precisely because she was trying to distinguish herself from people that were actually pushing for the elimination of blacks. And you fall into a correlation/causation trap on the placement of PP clinics. They're placed for the best access to the larges populations that need their services; near the urban poor. It's only coincidental that urban poor populations happen to be primarily black, not a direct motivation for placement.

There's lots of sure evidence that she strongly believed in eugenics (though is should be noted also that she was firmly opposed to abortion on moral grounds, instead promoting birth control and, in cases of infirmity, insanity, or retardation, sterilization). There's also plenty of evidence of xenophobia due to her anti-immigration stances, but the primary focus of her efforts were on alleviating poverty and limiting one of the key contributing factors to poverty- having an unsustainable number of children. The fact that this ended up encompassing mostly blacks was because blacks make up the greater portion of urban poor.

To get to the conclusion the she was trying to eliminate blacks, you have to completely ignore her express statements about promoting birth control to remove one of the key contributing factors to poverty, thus better enabling people to escape it and then be able to afford to have children. You have to take completely out of context her statements regarding eliminating inferior genes, which were made in reference to retardation, genetic diseases, and the like. And you have to start from the preconception that it is an inherent genetic factor that makes blacks represent the greater portion of the urban poor and then project that believe onto her, despite a complete lack of evidence for that link.

It's fully possible that she did actually harbor such attitudes, but it's also equally clear that the driving philosophy that she used in managing PP was to help people to escape poverty by giving them the tools they needed to avoid having children until they were financially prepared to support them. Whatever personal racial bigotry she might have harbored, she kept it to herself on all matters aside from immigration.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
 Whatever personal racial bigotry she might have harbored, she kept it to herself on all matters aside from immigration.

Did Sanger even display racial bigotry in her immigration policies?  In which of her writings?
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Oh Pyrtolin, it's so amusing to see you jump through the hoops of rationalizations and justifications since you are obviously a supporter of Planned Parenthoods ideological premises.

I'm sure you would go to similar great lengths to explain away any troublesome quotations from Republican/Conservative/Pro-life proponents!

[Exploding]

@ Wayward - not funny. I didn't realize you were homophobic. Shame on you.

[LOL] [LOL] [LOL]

Look people, I'm not trying to say "pro-choice" equals "racist, eugenecist!"

But it is rather interesting to note the tendency to minimize/rationalize or explain away Margaret Sanger's explicit attitudes and motivations, when she spoke rather plainly about her beliefs.

[DOH]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
I love it when someone brings up something "horribly damning", the other side calmly admits the historic facts but counters the implications as to current policy, and then the first guy brays "it is rather interesting to note the tendency to minimize/rationalize or explain away....[whatever it is]"

You played your huge trump. It was easily parried. We're not ignoring it. We admitted the basic facts (Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist with racist attitudes). You're ignoring that it's not the winner you thought it was, any more than Prescott Bush being a proven nazi sympathizer said anything about his grandson.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
If we accept Daruma's interpretation of Sanger's motives, and Ricky et al.'s interpretation of Planned Parenthood's current motives, the same policy may be equally serving both sides. The question is: Do the policies in question serve the goals of one or the other? Or can it be both? Is today's Planned Parenthood a dupe for the legacy of racist eugenicist, or has the racist eugenicist's legacy been subverted into something antithetical to her aims?

The interesting thing about this debate is that neither side's position is really all that inconsistent with the other's.

Makes my head spin [Smile]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
The interesting thing about this debate is that neither side's position is really all that inconsistent with the other's.
Yeah, I was just going to observe that it's not actually an "either/or" scenario. It is possible that Planned Parenthood is to some extent artificially depressing the minority population (although, frankly, I don't think it is doing so appreciably, and definitely not in the way Sanger hoped), and providing a useful service to people who want more say over when they have children (either through abortion or birth control.)

(I have to note here that, despite being generally opposed to abortion, I am hugely in favor of Planned Parenthood's policy of making subsidized birth control -- in a variety of surgical, pharmaceutical, and mechanical forms -- available to everyone.)
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
(I have to note here that, despite being generally opposed to abortion, I am hugely in favor of Planned Parenthood's policy of making subsidized birth control -- in a variety of surgical, pharmaceutical, and mechanical forms -- available to everyone.)

I agree with that sentiment. Subsidized birth control is a form of socialism of which I'm firmly in favor. It has a very high return for the dollars invested.

[ February 07, 2011, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]
 
Posted by TheRallanator (Member # 6624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
What influence do you believe Margaret Sanger has on the placement of Planned Parenthood clinics, Daruma?

She's a feminazi, and they're providing feminazi services. If you can't connect the dots and get a picture that says NWO then you're just another one of the sheeple [Big Grin]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Knock it off with your ovine fantasies, Rallan...
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
New video release, this time from a NY office:
quote:
Prostitute: They just came over, they’re workin’ with us, and we’re helpin’ them out –

Parenthood Planned Staffer: Mhm

Prostitute: Just keeping them safe.

Pimp: Could we even sign off as guardians? Could we even sign off as a guardian, is that even possible?

Planned Parenthood Staffer: If you were writing the support letter, yeah, you could say –

Prostitute: Oh good

Planned Parenthood Staffer: that you take care of them, you support them.

Pimp: Cool!

Planned Parenthood Staffer: But nothing here, like, our patients, we don’t ask for guardian’s signature. Everything is the patient. Like a thirteen-year-old could come in and get the services she needed, by herself.

Pimp: So, how would you recommend for them best to do it? Cause we don’t want them getting confused or what not, and it’s kind of a sensitive subject, so we don’t want you know, them saying the wrong thing, you know getting refused or turned away, so how would you suggest they go about you know being able to get the access even in spite of what they do, you know?

Planned Parenthood Staffer: Yeah, like, like I said everything’s confidential, they don’t have to tell anybody what it is that they do when they make the an appointment, it’s just gonna be between them and the Physician they see.

Walking the pimp through the process of getting his 13 and 14 year old sex slaves abortions.

Reading this thread and damn, some of you people really love abortions.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
"Reading this thread and damn, some of you people really love abortions. "

Only for your mama, but too late for that.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
That statements pretty outrageous RickyB.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Walking the pimp through the process of getting his 13 and 14 year old sex slaves abortions.
In other words, making sure that kids get the care they need to prevent even worse damage to their lives, while reporting the abusers to the proper authorities so that there's some hope of rescuing them from the overall situation.

Seriously, all it seems like you're saying here is that the theoretical girls don't deserve critical health services.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
That statements pretty outrageous RickyB.

I'll agree there. It doesn't help anything to drop to that level.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
G2,

What do you believe the correct response should have been? How would you have responded in the same circumstances in a way which have resulted in improved circumstances for these girls?
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
That statements pretty outrageous RickyB.

Agreed, but so was what he was responding to. The more G2 breaks the rules here without consequence, the more people are going to start responding in kind. You should direct your complaints to the mod.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
I think they should have immediately called the cops. They most certainly should not have coached them on how to get around the rules.

And since they fired the staffer in question, I don't think there is any doubt that the staffer was in the wrong.

quote:
Live Action also filmed Planned Parenthood staff helping sex traffickers in New Jersey and the nurse who aided the alleged traffickers there has already been fired and the state health department is looking into the problems further.
quote:
Planned Parenthood’s Vice President Stuart Schear said that, “There is no training that could prevent this from happening. This was a complete breakdown in judgment. We don’t understand what happened with this employee.’”
Furthermore, Planned Parenthood has implicitly admitted their staff was improperly trained:

quote:
Officials at the abortion centers should have shown great concern about the potentially illegal activities and immediately reported them to authorities. Because that was not done, Planned Parenthood said Monday it would retrain thousands of staff people across the country in the proper procedures for dealing with sex traffickers in the future. The abortion business also said it would fire any staffers violating those procedures.
Link

It looks like Planned Parenthood was engaged in widespread illegal activities and they are now responding to this with retraining thousands of their staff to be in compliance with the law.

If you are confronted with a child sex slave, you call the cops and get the slave away from the slaver! You don't advise the slaver on the best way to beat the system.

You guys sound like some KKK members from the 1920's, rationalizing plantations as places designed to look after the poor benighted negroes who weren't capable of looking after themselves.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
I think they should have immediately called the cops. They most certainly should not have coached them on how to get around the rules.
How do you believe they should have kept the fake slaver on the premises while they called the cops?
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I think they should have immediately called the cops. They most certainly should not have coached them on how to get around the rules.
How do you believe they should have kept the fake slaver on the premises while they called the cops?
[DOH]
Why should they even have to try? If a known child kidnapper walks into a restaurant, you call the cops. Maybe you try to detain him if you think it won't endanger the kid, but you certainly don't sell him a meal, advise him on the best way to avoid the road block up ahead and recommend that he stick the kid in the truck so no one else notices.

I would have stopped the process immediately. Called building security. Then, told the pimp that underage prostitution is illegal, pimping is illegal and what he was describing sounded a lot like slavery. If he ran, then when the cops showed up they would have gotten my testimony and could then go look at the buildings security camera footage.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
And this is why Republicans are bad at social services. [Smile]
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
I have to note here that, despite being generally opposed to abortion, I am hugely in favor of Planned Parenthood's policy of making subsidized birth control -- in a variety of surgical, pharmaceutical, and mechanical forms -- available to everyone.
As well as their policy of providing pregnancy testing and prenatal care to under-served populations.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
And this is why Republicans are bad at social services. [Smile]

And that is why democrats destroy the heart and soul of people. [Smile]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I think they should have immediately called the cops. They most certainly should not have coached them on how to get around the rules.
How do you believe they should have kept the fake slaver on the premises while they called the cops?
[DOH]
Why should they even have to try? If a known child kidnapper walks into a restaurant, you call the cops. Maybe you try to detain him if you think it won't endanger the kid, but you certainly don't sell him a meal, advise him on the best way to avoid the road block up ahead and recommend that he stick the kid in the truck so no one else notices.


Wait- you wouldn't serve him a meal, despite that being the best way to keep him in one place lone enough for the cops to show up?

And the rest of your comparison is completely false. It would be better to say that you wouldn't serve the kid a glass of water while the kid was in his company despite the fact that the kid is obviously nearly completely dehydrated. PP didn't tell him anything about how to avoid being caught running a prostitution ring, only about how get proper medical care for girls that needed it.

quote:
I would have stopped the process immediately. Called building security.
And right there set up yourself for liability for civil rights violations because your security wouldn't have any right to do anything but ask him to leave. Private security doesn't have the authority to arrest or detain anyone.

quote:
Then, told the pimp that underage prostitution is illegal, pimping is illegal and what he was describing sounded a lot like slavery. If he ran, then when the cops showed up they would have gotten my testimony and could then go look at the buildings security camera footage.
And meanwhile, the pimp has gone to ground and doesn't let the girls go anywhere near the medical services they need.

In your actions, not only do the girls go untreated, but you've just completely squandered your ability to actually help serve as a useful element of a sting operation against such activity, and perhaps opened up a loophole to get the case dismissed on a technicality.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:

If a known child kidnapper walks into a restaurant, you call the cops. Maybe you try to detain him if you think it won't endanger the kid, but you certainly don't sell him a meal, advise him on the best way to avoid the road block up ahead and recommend that he stick the kid in the truck so no one else notices.

Wait- you wouldn't serve him a meal, despite that being the best way to keep him in one place lone enough for the cops to show up?

And the rest of your comparison is completely false. It would be better to say that you wouldn't serve the kid a glass of water while the kid was in his company despite the fact that the kid is obviously nearly completely dehydrated. PP didn't tell him anything about how to avoid being caught running a prostitution ring, only about how get proper medical care for girls that needed it.

[Confused] Yes, I would feed him a meal if it gave time for the cops to show up.

No, she didn't give him advice on how to run a prostitution ring , she did give him advice on how to appear legit. (In other words, how to avoid the authorities). And she was fired for this advice.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
I would have stopped the process immediately. Called building security.
And right there set up yourself for liability for civil rights violations because your security wouldn't have any right to do anything but ask him to leave. Private security doesn't have the authority to arrest or detain anyone.

Wrong! That's just factually wrong. If the building has a licensed security officer then they certainly can arrest you.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
And meanwhile, the pimp has gone to ground and doesn't let the girls go anywhere near the medical services they need.

[Roll Eyes] So of course, you would just recommend letting the pimp have all his 13 year old girls go through with the abortions, because it's better to spend your childhood as a sex slave than risk an unwanted pregnancy?


quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
In your actions, not only do the girls go untreated, but you've just completely squandered your ability to actually help serve as a useful element of a sting operation against such activity, and perhaps opened up a loophole to get the case dismissed on a technicality.

And if the pimp never comes back? I would much rather risk the pimp getting freed on a technicality and immediately stop the harm to the children than hope the cops can catch him later.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
WNo, she didn't give him advice on how to run a prostitution ring , she did give him advice on how to appear legit. (In other words, how to avoid the authorities). And she was fired for this advice.


No, she gave advice on how to get service at a PP facility, absolutely nothing to do with avoiding legal authorities. Especially because she then raised a red flag to said authorities. The only thing she advised him around was bureaucratic red tape designed to prevent people from getting services; he'd already tripped the part of the system that resulted in legal authorities being notified.

quote:
Wrong! That's just factually wrong. If the building has a licensed security officer then they certainly can arrest you.
In PA, all that means is that they can carry a gun. They're still private citizens, and unless the local county or municipality has made a specific allowance, they're limited to the same rules as a private citizen as far as actually having to witness a felony to make a Citizen's Arrest.

quote:
So of course, you would just recommend letting the pimp have all his 13 year old girls go through with the abortions, because it's better to spend your childhood as a sex slave than risk an unwanted pregnancy?
As opposed to being a sex slave that's additionally trapped by unwanted pregnancy, and eventually having a child that the pimp can use for additional leverage? You expect that he's some how going to let her go just because she's sick or pregnant? And again, the legal authorities were notified, so no one was actually allowing him to continue, only making sure that, in the mean time, at least some basic measure of protection was given to the girls.


quote:
And if the pimp never comes back? I would much rather risk the pimp getting freed on a technicality and immediately stop the harm to the children than hope the cops can catch him later.
If he never comes back, then that's no worse than the best you can hope for if you try to catch him yourself. At least you can provide credible evidence against him. Even if you manage to get him picked up there on the spot, you haven't actually protected any children as they're still out there, just pushed off to the next abuser to find them and take over.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
No, she didn't give him advice on how to run a prostitution ring , she did give him advice on how to appear legit.
Read the transcripts again.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
As opposed to being a sex slave that's additionally trapped by unwanted pregnancy, and eventually having a child that the pimp can use for additional leverage? You expect that he's some how going to let her go just because she's sick or pregnant? And again, the legal authorities were notified, so no one was actually allowing him to continue, only making sure that, in the mean time, at least some basic measure of protection was given to the girls.
[Eek!] Really? You wouldn't detain someone with a child sex slave if it was in your power to do so? I mean okay, if you're just a private citizen on the street and you don't think you can detain him safely that's one thing. But you have armed security on hand and you'd just let the guy walk out the door with his child sex slave?!

I get the argument that doing so would risk other pimps running to ground and destroy the ability of the clinic to provide medical care to child prostitutes. I don't really understand the logic that says that this is better for this specific girl to be allowed to walk out the door with her pimp.

As for lawsuits, let the pimp sue you. Let the child sex slaver bring a claim against you for false imprisonment. That's what liability insurance is for. Let the scumbag find a lawyer to represent him and break his teeth on your insurance company.

[ February 08, 2011, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Try proving he's a slaver. All he needs to do is claim he was filming you for a sting operation.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Try proving he's a slaver. All he needs to do is claim he was filming you for a sting operation.
I'd say him showing up with an underage girl who is not related to him and claiming to be her pimp is pretty suggestive. And if he claims it's a sting operation, then he's admitting that he gave you justification to suspect he was a pimp.

The burden is on him to prove his case.

I think if anyone were stupid enough to bring a lawsuit like that they'd be torn to shreds and risk drawing alot of unwanted attention on their lives.

If it were me, I'd take the risk of having to pay the deductible on my liability insurance policy if it meant the chance of saving a child sex slave.

[ February 08, 2011, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
*sigh* I hate to say this, but have you ever known any underage prostitutes? Confronting this guy in a clinic has a vanishingly small chance of successfully freeing the girl with him. It's all very well and good to play cowboy, but surely it's better to effectively work to improve her situation.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
*sigh* I hate to say this, but have you ever known any underage prostitutes? Confronting this guy in a clinic has a vanishingly small chance of successfully freeing the girl with him. It's all very well and good to play cowboy, but surely it's better to effectively work to improve her situation.
I guess I'm naive but can't she just be forcibly taken away from him and put in foster care? Does she even get a say in the matter?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Forcibly taken away by whom?
I think you're seriously overstating the ability of this secretary to array forces against this guy and his teenage accomplice.

You let them leave after making an appointment, then inform the police. Throwing down in the lobby of your clinic does no one any good.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
No, she didn't give him advice on how to run a prostitution ring , she did give him advice on how to appear legit.
Read the transcripts again.
Actually, I have read the transcripts.

quote:
AMY WOODRUFF, CLINIC MANAGER: “If they come in for pregnancy testing, um, s**t, at that point I’d still be. You never got this from me. Just to make all our lives easier. If they’re fourteen and under just send them right there if they need an abortion. Okay?”

And when the man acting as a pimp asked about birth control…

AMY WOODRUFF, CLINIC MANAGER: “Here’s the thing, too. If they’re minors, just tell them to put down that they’re students. Just..”
FAKE PIMP: “Students.”
AMY WOODRUFF, CLINIC MANAGER: “Yeah. Just kinda play along that they’re students. We want to make it look as legit’ as possible.”

Transcript


quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Wrong! That's just factually wrong. If the building has a licensed security officer then they certainly can arrest you.
In PA, all that means is that they can carry a gun. They're still private citizens, and unless the local county or municipality has made a specific allowance, they're limited to the same rules as a private citizen as far as actually having to witness a felony to make a Citizen's Arrest.

First, this video was from New Jersey, so PA law is pretty irrelevant. Second, I said arrest which is wrong. I meant detain. A licensed security officer can detain criminals and not just in the cases of observed felonies. Security officers search and detain shop lifters all the time. Even in cases where they didn't personally observe the activity.

[ February 09, 2011, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: JWatts ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
. Security officers search and detain shop lifters all the time
That's because people who are unaware of their legal rights allow them to, not because they actually have the right to detain anyone that hasn't explicitly been detected shoplifting. (In NJ Licensing requires 24 hours of training and is a basic prerequisite to be a security guard at all, it doesn't grant any special powers)

Here's the relevant part of NJ law. Reasonable suspicion creates a limited power to detain; it's not a natural ability of security guards:

quote:
When someone commits an act of shoplifting, it gives rise to certain rights on behalf of the storekeeper. In certain situations, it may be rightful for the storekeeper to detain a shopper he suspects of theft. When a shopkeeper, security guard, or police officer has probable cause to believe someone has shoplifted and has purposely concealed items on him, the shopkeeper can detain the shoplifter. Probable cause requires the shopkeeper to have a reasonable basis to conclude that theft has occurred. Additionally, the theft must have occurred in front of the shopkeeper.

Even if detention is rightful, it must still be carried out in a reasonable manner so that only reasonable force is used. Additionally, the detention must not last longer than the reasonable time period necessary to determine whether the individual has the items and secure them. For example, if a merchant believes he witnessed a customer concealing an item in his coat and the merchant detains that person and finds that there is nothing in the coat, the merchant must release the customer upon that finding. If the customer is held over the reasonable time period, the merchant will not be immune from civil or criminal liability for the detention, and may be charged with false imprisonment.

Many areas are slowly granting security guards more powers because of the limited availability of police officers, but that doesn't stop them from taking advantage of people's respect for apparent authority and ignorance of their rights.

And, unless you've got the dumbest pimp in the world on your hands (which he might be if he's being as blatant as someone trolling for reactions) he's going to be more actively aware of just how far powers and rights extend than someone that doesn't have to depend on such in their day to day life.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:

Reasonable suspicion creates a limited power to detain; it's not a natural ability of security guards:

Yes of course, just like a normal police officer must have a reasonable suspicion to detain you.

I think you've pretty much proven my point that a licensed security guard in NJ could have detained an admitted child pimp.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:

Reasonable suspicion creates a limited power to detain; it's not a natural ability of security guards:

Yes of course, just like a normal police officer must have a reasonable suspicion to detain you.

I think you've pretty much proven my point that a licensed security guard in NJ could have detained an admitted child pimp.

No- that doesn't fall into either witnessing a crime or the explicit shoplifting extension.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
No- that doesn't fall into either witnessing a crime or the explicit shoplifting extension.

First you said Security Guards couldn't detain.

Now you are changing your argument to say Security Guards can't detain unless they witness a crime. Furthermore, your very own quote does not support this new argument.

quote:
When a shopkeeper, security guard, or police officer has probable cause to believe

 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:

Now you are changing your argument to say Security Guards can't detain unless they witness a crime.

In other words, they can make a Citizen's Arrest (something that can only be done if the citizen witnesses the crime) which is explicitly what I said above.


quote:
Furthermore, your very own quote does not support this new argument.

quote:
When a shopkeeper, security guard, or police officer has probable cause to believe

Sure, if you cut the sentence off in the middle right before the qualifier:
quote:
someone has shoplifted and has purposely concealed items on him,
Not any crime, only one specific crime, given that this comes from the laws about shoplifting, not from the laws about when a citizen can detain someone.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Live Action addresses the PP "response":
quote:
“We reported this to the FBI”

Planned Parenthood wrote the FBI a letter a week AFTER our investigation, only after they realized that Live Action had conducted the sting. They say this themselves. As much as they may pretend, Planned Parenthood was not attempting to help send human traffickers to jail; they were attempting to pre-empt the release of Live Action’s footage.

If Planned Parenthood really cared about reporting potential sex traffickers to authorities, they would have called police while the pimp was in the clinic, or immediately after. Not wasting a minute. Planned Parenthood, where are the reports from the now SIX clinics we’ve released, that you immediately called the police?

Why did all your staffers, instead of refusing service or gathering information from the pimp about his sex ring to inform authorities, GIVE the pimp information about how to access the Planned Parenthood system for secret services?

So yeah, PP did notify the FBI but it's obvious that was a preemptive action to deflect criticism once they knew they would be exposed.
quote:
Live Action Videos Are All “Doctored” and a “Hoax”

We have heard this tired claim from Planned Parenthood every time we release a video. Yet every time we’ve released a video, we post the full, unedited footage online for all to see, and send the full, unedited footage to state and federal authorities. Planned Parenthood can’t argue with the full footage.

See Vice-President Stuart Schear on camera claiming our tapes are doctored, then admitting he hasn’t even seen them.

Planned Parenthood, if you really think our videos are “fake”, “doctored” and a “hoax”, why did you yesterday claim that you will be retraining your entire staff of 11,000?

This was one of the first ones tried here too. TomDavidson claimed this despite never seeing them either, it's simply a knee jerk response. Good question at the end ... why do they claim retraining if this was the result of faked video? Everything should be fine, no training needed. In other words, everything is fine but we're gonna fix it too! [LOL]

quote:
This is an “isolated incident”

A favorite of Planned Parenthood’s. Every time Live Action releases a video (and we’ve released over 16 now), it is “an isolated incident”. Let the facts speak for themselves. Look at the evidence. For over three years our team has been investigating the institutional sex abuse cover up at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics. Even before the human trafficking footage, we released 10 clinics that revealed the sexual abuse cover up of minors as young as 13. In these 10 clinics, we had actors posing as the underage girls, self-reporting abuse and asking for help. In every case, Planned Parenthood worked to cover up the abuse of the underage girl and did not comply with the mandatory reporting laws for sexual abuse. Instead of help and safety, the underage girls are coached by Planned Parenthood staffers on how to cover up abuse and get secret abortions.

Live Action has now released video from six more clinics in the past week, all showing Planned Parenthood workers, at all levels of the organization, willing to aid and abet the human traffickers of underage girls.

This is an institutional crisis that has engulfed the whole organization. No matter how many times Planned Parenthood’s PR firm says “isolated incident”, the growing body of evidence still stands.

That's a whole lot of “isolated incidents”. [Roll Eyes]

There were others but those pretty much encapsulate it.

[ February 09, 2011, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
Inspired by the recent thread necromancy and in light of recent events, how's the defenders of planned parenthood feeling today?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Pretty good, since the most recent "events" are prompted by a another edited hoax video. It only reinforces the conclusion that modern conservatives are dishonest when they're not just stupid.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Or that conservatives can be dishonest and stupid at the same time. [Smile]

You might want to start with PolitiFact, Rafi, although there are several that debunk this particular piece.

quote:
"(Clinics) want to do this, but they want to do it in a way that’s not going to impact them, and it’s much much less about money. You could call them up and say, ‘I’ll pay you double the money,’ and they’re almost more inclined to say no, because it’s going to look bad. … To them, this is not a service they should be making money from, it’s something they should be able to offer this to their patients, in a way that doesn’t impact them.

"Again, affiliates don’t — affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line.

"At the end of the day we just want to keep the doors open. And we don’t want to let jeopardize keeping the doors open. We just want (the cost per specimen) to be reasonable for the impact it has on the clinic. This is not a new revenue stream the affiliates are looking at. This is a way to offer the patient the service that they want. Do good for the medical community.

"Like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream because that’s not what it is."

Remember hearing that on the video? [Wink]

As a poster on Snopes nicely summarized it, "[T]his video was edited to make it look like PP was selling fetus, but they aren’t. They were discussing the tissue donations that some patients choose to do, which is totally legal, and the cost of transport."

So, how are you feeling today, being duped once again by the conservative propoganda machine? [Big Grin]

[ July 21, 2015, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
Wow, such hysterics. Calm down.

So when you guys say it's a "hoax" and "debunked", what parts of this story are, in your opinions, not true?
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
The part where Planned Parenthood is supposedly "illegally profiting" from selling fetal tissue.

Much like some of our Presidential candidates have said.

quote:
Rick Perry, July 14: The video showing a Planned Parenthood employee selling the body parts of aborted children is a disturbing reminder of the organization’s penchant for profiting off the tragedy of a destroyed human life.

Rand Paul, July 14: … a video showing [Planned Parenthood]’s top doctor describing how she performs late-term abortions to sell body parts for profit!

Carly Fiorina, July 14: This latest news is tragic and outrageous. This isn’t about “choice.” It’s about profiting on the death of the unborn while telling women it’s about empowerment.

Tells you something about the caliber of the candidates, don't it? [Wink]

This is what you were talking about, isn't it, Rafi? Or was it somehow shocking to discover that Planned Parenthood had been legally providing fetal tissue for medical research without profitting from it, something that has been going on for decades? That is the obvious thing you were referring to. Were you referring to something else?
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
Ok, so why are you in such hysterics? Do you work at one of these? Calm down, dude. Let's go a step at a time.

So PP is dismembering infants before they're born and chopping them into parts to sell. That's something that is so painfully obvious to you, and anyone else, that to think otherwise is absurd. Do I have that correct so far?
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
As part of the abortion procedure, the fetus is often dismembered, yes, whether intentionally (as for late-term abortions) or unintentionally (because of the suction process). From what I read, they sometimes have to reassemble the pieces to make sure everything is there. So, yeah, basically that is true, although they are not "chopped," since that implies intentional dismemberment.

And they are fetuses or earlier, not "infants." Terminology is important here to be clear.

"Into parts to sell" is incorrect. They are not dismembered for selling purposes, and they are not sold. The tissue is donated.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
The "sell" part is wrong. They will ship the fetal tissue elsewhere for research purposes, and charge for the shipping. There's no profit motive.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Rafi, do you have a problem with organ donation? Would you say that hospitals that participate in that chop up people to sell?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
so why are you in such hysterics?
I'm genuinely curious: what sentence in the last few posts would you say was "hysterical" in tone? I understand why it's important to you to spin the response in that way, but which choice of words in particular do you believe gives you that opportunity?

quote:
So, yeah, basically that is true, although they are not "chopped," since that implies intentional dismemberment.
Actually, to be fair, I believe there is indeed some intentional chopping going on. It's not like they just shove a stick blender up there and set it to puree. The general goal is to kill the fetus and then take it apart methodically.

And, yes, I'm squicked out by this in a way that I'm not squicked out by organ donation, since there's arguably less consent; you'll recall that I'm opposed to third trimester abortion precisely because I think there's a substantial chance that we're dealing with sentience by that point. But if we're going to allow abortion based on the argument that a fetus is not a person and the woman carrying it is entitled to oversee its treatment, this is a reasonable and even sensible result.

To argue in the other direction -- to say that this result is squicky, and therefore abortion must not be allowed even if the fetus isn't a person -- doesn't make much logical sense; it's a pure appeal to emotion, on the order of "gay sex seems icky and awkward to me."

[ July 21, 2015, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
Strange how hard we try to work the wording to distance ourselves from what's happening. So, I'm stuck on a mobile device, pardon me as I try to string it all together.

They are intentionally dismembered. Whether during th initial procedure or afterward inoreperation for sale and shipping, at some point a human body is birken down into human parts.

The sell part is wrong? They only charge for shipping? How do we know that? Hen what's up with all the negotiations? I've worked at and with a number of places that ship things and it's not really a negotiable thing. Is PP also doing their own delivery service? Why did one negotiate and brag about wanting a Lamborghini? How did negotiating shipping translate into her getting a car?

As an adult donating organs, do hospitals negotiate the "shipping"?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
How did negotiating shipping translate into her getting a car?
Is it your genuine belief that she has purchased a Lamborghini?

quote:
As an adult donating organs, do hospitals negotiate the "shipping"?
It should be noted that, yes, they do. Organs for medical research purposes are almost never delivered for free, even when they are donated for specific research. There is a substantial cost associated with storing and transporting them.

Really, any idiot who believes that Planned Parenthood is encouraging late-term abortions so they can profit from the sale of baby parts is, well, an idiot. That's rather like a hospital trying to foment civil unrest so they can sell bandages.

[ July 21, 2015, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
I don't believe she purchased a Lamborghini, I believe she intended to benefit sufficiently from the sale that she would be able to purchase something very expensive though.

No, shipped my is not free. Certainly not. But PP does not provide a shipping service as far as I know. It would seem that PP would have to negotiate shipping with a shipping company instead of doing it with each individual customer.

As for structuring the abortions sonthatbtheyblrivid maximum opportunity for harvesting (and selling), they clearly admit to that.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
I believe she intended to benefit sufficiently from the sale that she would be able to purchase something very expensive though.
You believe this is money that she would have personally kept? That sales of these organs accord substantial personal wealth to the office workers who arrange them?

quote:
It would seem that PP would have to negotiate shipping with a shipping company instead of doing it with each individual customer.
I am certain that, like most vendors, they negotiate with each customer while keeping their own costs in mind. In other words: certain organs will cost more to ship and store than others, while certain others will be rarer and more difficult to obtain (like, as noted in the video, any parts of the brain). I'm not sure what strikes you as unethical about that.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
I've worked at and with a number of places that ship things and it's not really a negotiable thing.
Seriously? Same price for USPS or FedEx overnight? Same price for giftwrapped or not? Of someone has a special request that the item be put in a series of 10 boxes, alternating bubble wrap and packing peanuts, with each box wrapped in a specific color or character print paper, then be hand delivered, it would cost exactly the same as a standard bulk rate envelope?

There's going to be differences in shipping and labor costs from someone who's fine with having the tissue shipped standard mail in a formaldehyde preservation solution and someone who wants the equivalent of a live organ transplant, with the specimen hand delivered immediately using dry ice to keep it chilled enough to prevent degradation. Or perhaps they want it sliced thin and pressed into microscope slides. That's a process that;s going to cost a different amount than anything mentioned above.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
I believe she intended to benefit sufficiently from the sale that she would be able to purchase something very expensive though.
Then you would be wrong.

Think about it. $30 - $100 is pocket change. I typically carry about that much for gas. No one is going to get rich on that piddling amount.

It would be enough, though, to compensate for packing and shipping, which is what she said.

So while you might want to believe those charges are for profit, the numbers don't add up.

quote:
They are intentionally dismembered. Whether during th initial procedure or afterward inoreperation for sale and shipping, at some point a human body is birken down into human parts.
Although technically true, this kinda sounds like like a meat packing plant or such.

Realize that a majority of the fetuses are simply disposed of. (I mean, how much of a market is there for fetal tissue?) For that, there is no dismemberment after the procedure. Why bother?

Yes, if there is a need for a specific part, that will be removed. But even then, the rest will be disposed of.

Only if the entire fetus is required will they make sure that all parts are present.

Abortion is not easy, and it's not pretty. To safely remove the fetus, sometime it's safest to bring it out in parts. Often times the procedure itself can break the fetus apart. But that is primarily for medical reasons, not for splitting up the body for sale.

This is salvaging portions of the body for medical use, like donating organs, not cutting steaks.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:

They are intentionally dismembered. Whether during th initial procedure or afterward inoreperation for sale and shipping, at some point a human body is birken down into human parts.


Again, this is also true for organ donation. And again, not "sale". Stop saying "sale".
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Wayward, it should be noted that in the video they discuss trying to leave intact the pieces of the fetus most likely desired for research. I don't think this is at all unreasonable, but the implication is that the people doing the dismembering are indeed conscious of the fact that an intact lung is worth considerably more than, say, an intact thigh, and will try to make cuts in ways that will not damage the most desirable tissue.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Wayward, it should be noted that in the video they discuss trying to leave intact the pieces of the fetus most likely desired for research. I don't think this is at all unreasonable, but the implication is that the people doing the dismembering are indeed conscious of the fact that an intact lung is worth considerably more than, say, an intact thigh, and will try to make cuts in ways that will not damage the most desirable tissue.

They would probably use the term "useful" rather than "desirable".
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Of course PP also contacted the FBI to have them investigate the prostitution angle. Aside from that this is pretty much empty outrage over the fact that they provided essential health services to people that needed those services

If you go into an ER with a gunshot wound, the ER docs aren't going to ask who shot you as a precondition to treating you.

The ER treats a gunshot wound and calls the police. You didnt know that?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Pete, I'm not sure how you get from "ER docs aren't going to ask who shot you as a precondition to treating you to not knowing that ER informs the police about gunshot wounds.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
I've worked at and with a number of places that ship things and it's not really a negotiable thing.
Seriously? Same price for USPS or FedEx overnight? Same price for giftwrapped or not? Of someone has a special request that the item be put in a series of 10 boxes, alternating bubble wrap and packing peanuts, with each box wrapped in a specific color or character print paper, then be hand delivered, it would cost exactly the same as a standard bulk rate envelope?

There's going to be differences in shipping and labor costs from someone who's fine with having the tissue shipped standard mail in a formaldehyde preservation solution and someone who wants the equivalent of a live organ transplant, with the specimen hand delivered immediately using dry ice to keep it chilled enough to prevent degradation. Or perhaps they want it sliced thin and pressed into microscope slides. That's a process that;s going to cost a different amount than anything mentioned above.

I'm pretty sure that your idea of Planned Parenthood being a agent for fedex and able to negotiate their rates is going to be a surprise to fedex. I'm unaware of any delivery service that would allow this but if PP is also a courier service then maybe that could happen. Is PP also a courier service?

I did not see any mention of preparing human organs in the manner you describe. Does PP also offer such research prep services?

You're kind of making things up to explain this.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:

They are intentionally dismembered. Whether during th initial procedure or afterward inoreperation for sale and shipping, at some point a human body is birken down into human parts.


Again, this is also true for organ donation. And again, not "sale". Stop saying "sale".
They negotiated for payment. What do you call it when someone negotiates payment for something?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
"Fee". "Reimbursement". "Service charge". "Shipping and handling". "Storage fee".

For the nteenth time, the are not selling the organs, they are recouping their cost of providing them.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
I've worked at and with a number of places that ship things and it's not really a negotiable thing.
Seriously? Same price for USPS or FedEx overnight? Same price for giftwrapped or not? Of someone has a special request that the item be put in a series of 10 boxes, alternating bubble wrap and packing peanuts, with each box wrapped in a specific color or character print paper, then be hand delivered, it would cost exactly the same as a standard bulk rate envelope?

There's going to be differences in shipping and labor costs from someone who's fine with having the tissue shipped standard mail in a formaldehyde preservation solution and someone who wants the equivalent of a live organ transplant, with the specimen hand delivered immediately using dry ice to keep it chilled enough to prevent degradation. Or perhaps they want it sliced thin and pressed into microscope slides. That's a process that;s going to cost a different amount than anything mentioned above.

I'm pretty sure that your idea of Planned Parenthood being a agent for fedex and able to negotiate their rates is going to be a surprise to fedex. I'm unaware of any delivery service that would allow this but if PP is also a courier service then maybe that could happen. Is PP also a courier service?

You're suggesting that PP has come kind of contract with FedEx or UPS that they can only use one particular service and not negotiate for which service is most appropriate to the request, even to the point of hiring a courier service if immediate cold delivery is needed?
I did not see any mention of preparing human organs in the manner you describe. Does PP also offer such research prep services? Why are you making up irrelevant things about choosing what price FedEx charges when the negotiation would be about whether to pay the FedEx, UPS, USPS, courier price, etc..[/quote][/qb]

quote:
I did not see any mention of preparing human organs in the manner you describe. Does PP also offer such research prep services?

It does, in fact pay to read what was said instead of making things up based on what you'd like people to be reacting to:
quote:
"The way they budget (for the cost of producing a specimen) is by the amount of time they spend on one patient. … It depends, if (the procurement service is) expecting somebody to process, and package, identify tissue for you, it’s going to be at the higher end of the range. In all cases, it’s really going to be about staff time, because that’s the only cost to the affiliate. And then, if you want space."
See "process, package, identify" up there? That's exactly what I was talking about and presenting possible examples of ways of processing tissue samples..

quote:
You're kind of making things up to explain this.
You're making things up that I didn't say, or simply not actually reading the facts so that's all on you.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
"Fee". "Reimbursement". "Service charge". "Shipping and handling". "Storage fee".

For the nteenth time, the are not selling the organs, they are recouping their cost of providing them.

So you'd argue that someone is not selling drugs but merely getting reimbursement for shipping?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
"Fee". "Reimbursement". "Service charge". "Shipping and handling". "Storage fee".

For the nteenth time, the are not selling the organs, they are recouping their cost of providing them.

So you'd argue that someone is not selling drugs but merely getting reimbursement for shipping?
If they're not charging for the drugs themselves, but only asking for reimbursement for shipping them at cost, sure.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
"Fee". "Reimbursement". "Service charge". "Shipping and handling". "Storage fee".

For the nteenth time, the are not selling the organs, they are recouping their cost of providing them.

So you'd argue that someone is not selling drugs but merely getting reimbursement for shipping?
No. People sell drugs. Why do you think that is the same? People sell bread and toys and all sorts of things.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
Yes, no. What is it? It's kinda the same if you bring a young woman to another country. You're not charging people to have sex with her, you're asking for reimbursement of shipping expenses. All legal right?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Rafi, please stop pretending to be stupid. It's going to stick that way someday.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Rafi, I am not sure what your confusion is here. Do you think that because some things are for sale that means that everything is for sale?
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
In my view, it depends on whether the S&H were reasonable and predominantly to cover the cost of the S&H or if it was unreasonable and predominantly to make it a profit center.

The unreasonable S&H is a fairly common tactic telemarketing and ebay.

The opinion of experts is that it was reasonable S&H.

quote:
“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.”
quote:
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.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/


http://m.snopes.com/pp-baby-parts-sale/

So PP charges well under the going rate for recovering costs related to S&H and related expenses compared to what hospitals charge, and probably is providing the service at less than cost.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"n my view, it depends on whether the S&H were reasonable and predominantly to cover the cost of the S&H or if it was unreasonable and predominantly to make it a profit center."

I agree those are pertinent issues but hardly the only pertinent issues, LR. If we can so glibly dismiss INFORMED CONSENT, then might not mental hospitals pimp out their vegetables a la Kill Bill, to defray costs of care?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Another issue is whether the patient's safety and care are compromised by the remover's conflict of interest in removing "desirable" organs in a desirable state.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Yes, no. What is it? It's kinda the same if you bring a young woman to another country. You're not charging people to have sex with her, you're asking for reimbursement of shipping expenses. All legal right?

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Rafi, please stop pretending to be stupid. It's going to stick that way someday.

If by sticking you mean that someone is going to pretend that he's playing stupid in one of the rare moments that he's making a valid point, one might say that's exactly what just happened.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Another issue is whether the patient's safety and care are compromised by the remover's conflict of interest in removing "desirable" organs in a desirable state.

I could see that as an issue if there were a larger incentive than donation. As they are not making a profit, I am less concerned.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"n my view, it depends on whether the S&H were reasonable and predominantly to cover the cost of the S&H or if it was unreasonable and predominantly to make it a profit center."

I agree those are pertinent issues but hardly the only pertinent issues, LR. If we can so glibly dismiss INFORMED CONSENT, then might not mental hospitals pimp out their vegetables a la Kill Bill, to defray costs of care?

Now that just makes no sense at all. Informed consent is obviously not possible with fetuses - but then it wouldn't be possible with organ donation from children either. What that has to do with raping living people is beyond me.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"n my view, it depends on whether the S&H were reasonable and predominantly to cover the cost of the S&H or if it was unreasonable and predominantly to make it a profit center."

I agree those are pertinent issues but hardly the only pertinent issues, LR. If we can so glibly dismiss INFORMED CONSENT, then might not mental hospitals pimp out their vegetables a la Kill Bill, to defray costs of care?

Who is dismissing informed consent? The women daunting the fetal matter are very explicitly consulted and consent to it being done. PP may provide the medical experts that can safely remove it and prepare it for transport and use, but it's very clear that it's only done with active consent from the donors.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Another issue is whether the patient's safety and care are compromised by the remover's conflict of interest in removing "desirable" organs in a desirable state.

I could see that as an issue if there were a larger incentive than donation. As they are not making a profit, I am less concerned.
They are not making a profit? Were they not making a profit at $75 a piece or were they not making a profit at $100 a piece? That's the price points negotiated.

Besides, let's see how many parts they sell and what they sell them for compared to the cost of acquisition. You assert they aren't making a profit but you have no idea if that's true. None. All we know for sure is they negotiate prices when selling parts.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"n my view, it depends on whether the S&H were reasonable and predominantly to cover the cost of the S&H or if it was unreasonable and predominantly to make it a profit center."

I agree those are pertinent issues but hardly the only pertinent issues, LR. If we can so glibly dismiss INFORMED CONSENT, then might not mental hospitals pimp out their vegetables a la Kill Bill, to defray costs of care?

Who is dismissing informed consent? The women daunting the fetal matter are very explicitly consulted and consent to it being done. PP may provide the medical experts that can safely remove it and prepare it for transport and use, but it's very clear that it's only done with active consent from the donors.
I am unconvinced that women are told that hearts, livers and entire heads will be negotiated for the highest price and sold. Perhaps thinking so makes you feel less "icky" but when we have them negotiating prices like that, then it looks like exactly what it is - criminal.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
Looks like somebody went full Snowden:
quote:
The women's health and abortion provider said Monday it has reported the crime to the Department of Justice and the FBI.
"Extremists who oppose Planned Parenthood's mission and services have launched an attack on our information systems, and have called on the world's most sophisticated hackers to assist them in breaching our systems and threatening the privacy and safety of our staff members," said Planned Parenthood Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens Monday afternoon.

They got emails apparently. This could be interesting. Love that they label them "extremists".
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Rafi, when you say that it is criminal to negotiate "prices" for tissue samples and organs, what crime are you alleging?
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"n my view, it depends on whether the S&H were reasonable and predominantly to cover the cost of the S&H or if it was unreasonable and predominantly to make it a profit center."

I agree those are pertinent issues but hardly the only pertinent issues, LR. If we can so glibly dismiss INFORMED CONSENT, then might not mental hospitals pimp out their vegetables a la Kill Bill, to defray costs of care?

I'm not sure whose consent you are talking about. If it's the woman who is having an abortion, I don't think that's an issue; PP definitely gets their consent for donating the fetal tissue.

But pertinent to what? is the point I am posting to make. These hypothetical ethical concerns you raise might be pertinent to someone for some reason, but they aren't pertinent to the point we've been discussing, which is whether PP is illegally selling fetal tissue for a profit.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Another issue is whether the patient's safety and care are compromised by the remover's conflict of interest in removing "desirable" organs in a desirable state.

I could see that as an issue if there were a larger incentive than donation. As they are not making a profit, I am less concerned.
They are not making a profit? Were they not making a profit at $75 a piece or were they not making a profit at $100 a piece? That's the price points negotiated.

Besides, let's see how many parts they sell and what they sell them for compared to the cost of acquisition. You assert they aren't making a profit but you have no idea if that's true. None. All we know for sure is they negotiate prices when selling parts.

"All we know for sure is they negotiate prices when selling parts". Heh.

Yep, just keep saying that with your fingers in your ears, and that's all you'll "know".
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Another issue is whether the patient's safety and care are compromised by the remover's conflict of interest in removing "desirable" organs in a desirable state.

I could see that as an issue if there were a larger incentive than donation. As they are not making a profit, I am less concerned.
They are not making a profit? Were they not making a profit at $75 a piece or were they not making a profit at $100 a piece? That's the price points negotiated.

Besides, let's see how many parts they sell and what they sell them for compared to the cost of acquisition. You assert they aren't making a profit but you have no idea if that's true. None. All we know for sure is they negotiate prices when selling parts.

I do have an idea. The people in LetterRip's post above have a very good idea and they shared it.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
They are not making a profit? Were they not making a profit at $75 a piece or were they not making a profit at $100 a piece? That's the price points negotiated.


Neither, because the price difference results from more expensive or time intensive processing and shipping methods being applied, as has already been clearly stated. The negotiation is for what processing and shipping will be used, the price follows naturally from that; a $10 UPS box will cost $10,, while a $50 courier will cost $50. Two hours of staff time will cost twice as much as one hour of staff time. A process that uses $10 worth of lab materials is going to add $10 to the cost, whereas a process that uses $20 will add $20. PP can't magically know what each recipient will want, so they need to discuss (IE: negotiate) the services required, and thus the resultant price.

About the only thing that we get out of it, per the post above, is that PP employees are either underpaid significantly as compared to people that work at larger medical facilities, or that it significantly subsidizes the costs by picking up a large part of the tab so that they're effectively charging well below cost for the sake of facilitating donations.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
They got emails apparently. This could be interesting. Love that they label them "extremists".

Conducting an extended campaign to deny women access to basic health services is well within bounds of looking like, quacking like, and acting like a duck.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
You assert they aren't making a profit but you have no idea if that's true. None. All we know for sure is they negotiate prices when selling parts.
Well, how about the opinion of someone who would know?

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.

So we have someone familiar with prices in the field who states that PP isn't making a profit off these tissues. Do you have anyone as knowledgeable that says they are? Or will you admit that all indications are that they are not making money off these sales?
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
Sure, let's go with the experience of someone who would know.
quote:
The Center for Medical Progress has released a third Planned Parenthood video, promising to be the first of a series. This one focuses on a phlebotomist who was hired by StemExpress as a "procurement technician." She says she found out after she was hired that rather than drawing blood (which is what a phlebotomist does), she was dissecting aborted babies so their parts could be sold off.

Some quotes:
"They do get some kind of benefit."
"They wanted someone who can get the numbers up."
"For whatever we could procure, they would get a certain percentage. The main nurse was always trying to make sure we got our specimens. No one else really cared, but the main nurse did because she knew that Planned Parenthood was getting compensated."

"We were asked to procure certain tissues like brain, livers, thymus, pancreas, heart, lungs, and pretty much anything on the fetus. It's basically a huge trafficking of fetal tissues."

The argument that they were selling it but doing so poorly at it that they posed a loss ... you know that's still criminal.

[ July 28, 2015, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: Rafi ]
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

Neither, because the price difference results from more expensive or time intensive processing and shipping methods being applied, as has already been clearly stated. .

No matter how many times you make this claim, that's not going to make it true. You need something that proves it.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"n my view, it depends on whether the S&H were reasonable and predominantly to cover the cost of the S&H or if it was unreasonable and predominantly to make it a profit center."

I agree those are pertinent issues but hardly the only pertinent issues, LR. If we can so glibly dismiss INFORMED CONSENT, then might not mental hospitals pimp out their vegetables a la Kill Bill, to defray costs of care?

Now that just makes no sense at all. Informed consent is obviously not possible with fetuses - but then it wouldn't be possible with organ donation from children either. What that has to do with raping living people is beyond me.
Are you being intentionally obtuse?

I refer to the informed consent of the aborting mother. Is she infomed that the method of abortion will be adjusted for readons that have nothing to do with her health and safety? That her safety may be compromised in an effort to obtain viable organs?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
you know that's still criminal
You keep using the word "criminal." What, specifically, do you think is criminal in this scenario?

I ask because as far as I can tell, nothing Planned Parenthood is doing here is illegal.

quote:
Is she informed that the method of abortion will be adjusted for reasons that have nothing to do with her health and safety? That her safety may be compromised in an effort to obtain viable organs?
I am genuinely curious whether this has ever actually happened. Given the extremely low margin on the tissue, increasing the risk to the mother -- and thus the potential costs, from legal fees to emergency medical procedures -- would be remarkably short-sighted. Since we're not talking about a significant amount of money winding up with any of the individuals who'd make that decision, I can't imagine what incentive they might have.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"n my view, it depends on whether the S&H were reasonable and predominantly to cover the cost of the S&H or if it was unreasonable and predominantly to make it a profit center."

I agree those are pertinent issues but hardly the only pertinent issues, LR. If we can so glibly dismiss INFORMED CONSENT, then might not mental hospitals pimp out their vegetables a la Kill Bill, to defray costs of care?

Now that just makes no sense at all. Informed consent is obviously not possible with fetuses - but then it wouldn't be possible with organ donation from children either. What that has to do with raping living people is beyond me.
Are you being intentionally obtuse?

I refer to the informed consent of the aborting mother. Is she infomed that the method of abortion will be adjusted for readons that have nothing to do with her health and safety? That her safety may be compromised in an effort to obtain viable organs?

Nope. I assumed that was the consent we were talking about because 1) I believe the fetus is more than just tissue so I do take its "rights" into consideration (I just consider the woman's rights to be the priority.) It is, after all, the one whose organs are being donated. and 2) It didn't occur to me that the woman having the abortion wouldn't be informed.

[ July 29, 2015, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

Neither, because the price difference results from more expensive or time intensive processing and shipping methods being applied, as has already been clearly stated. .

No matter how many times you make this claim, that's not going to make it true. You need something that proves it.
That proof has already been provided. You're presenting the exceptional claim here that they're somehow deviating from standard practice of such matters.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
That her safety may be compromised in an effort to obtain viable organs?
What makes you think that the woman's health and safety will be compromised? Everything I've read has stated that only methods that do not jepordize her health and safety would be used.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
I refer to the informed consent of the aborting mother. Is she infomed that the method of abortion will be adjusted for readons that have nothing to do with her health and safety? That her safety may be compromised in an effort to obtain viable organs?
Yes. That was already very explicitly stated in the explanation of the actual process.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
For Pete's peace of mind:
quote:
At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does — with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards.

 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
For Pete's peace of mind:
quote:
At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does — with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards.

Note, even that the request tend to originate from the patient in the first place. I mean there's probably a checkbox somewhere that offers the option, which then necessitates additional consent forms to be filled out in regard to the process.

Also it's worth noting that the techniques used to separate fetal tissue before removing it tend to be, where relevant, among the lowest risk procedures, with the only complication being laws passed by ginning up moral outrage to prevent it and forcing doctors to switch to slightly higher risk procedures to satisfy political efforts to complicate the process.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/publiclaw103-43.htm.html

Is the specific applicable law with this qualification explicitly allowing the processing fees that PP charges:
quote:
The term valuable consideration' does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.'.

 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
That her safety may be compromised in an effort to obtain viable organs?
What makes you think that the woman's health and safety will be compromised? .
My basic understanding of the concept of "conflict of interests" and the fact that i studied, aced, researched and litigated analogous coi, ie attorney conflict of intetests. For example, lawyers used to get clients to sign away confidentiality and publicity rights to "defray" the costs of their criminal defense. Many lawyers, most notably the one defending John D Lee of the mountain meadows massacre, got rich by writing made up books and signing them in the names of their executed former clients. Such waivers are now deemed unethical and cause for disnarment because the coutse of yhe criminal defense tends to get altered so that the attorney can write a more bombastic story.

I received waivers to tell stories about some clients but i acquired them AFTER the defense was complete, ergo defense not compromised by prospective profitability.

If someone wants to claim that the analogy isnt good, please explain the defect.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
It would seem to me that an defense attorney has quite a bit more lattitude in how to structure their defense than an abortion doctor/technician has in removing a fetus. And the consequences of not adhering to that procedure are well known.

So while there is a bit of lattitude in the procedure to remove a fetus, I don't believe they need to go beyond the common bounds in order to obtain the tissue they are asked for.

Besides, it's not like they're liable to make a ton of cash doing it (despite what Rafi may proclaim). [Smile]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Also, the person performing the procedure never sees any money for the additional service - that goes directly to Planned Parenthood. And notwithstanding Rafi's position, there are costs to defray, so the potential for PP to profit would be only a fraction of the numbers quoted earlier, a fraction which might even be negative.

So we're left with the unlikely and undocumented case of PP pressuring its employees to act in certain ways in order to make an additional profit of on the order of dollars (or possibly tens of dollars) or of the employees taking it upon themselves to increase the margins of their employer.

So conflict of interest is almost certainly not an issue, at least not based on the arguments presented to-date.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
TomDavidson, please pay attention. THIS is how one makes an honest coherent rebuttal to an analogy:

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
It would seem to me that an defense attorney has quite a bit more lattitude in how to structure their defense than an abortion doctor/technician has in removing a fetus. And the consequences of not adhering to that procedure are well known.

Excellent point, Wayward. Kudos. But that's an issue of degree of wrong, idnit?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Also, the person performing the procedure never sees any money for the additional service"

Really? They aren't compensated for their time? More work = employability and more job security.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
This thread got me interested in what the price of an abortion from Planned Parenthood actually is. PP's site isn't helpful, they're claiming they are down because of malicious attacks, honestly sounds more like they're trying to make a political point to me.

From the web it's sounds like the actual cost of the in office procedure (which is the one that would provide tissue) runs from $400 to $750. $100 additional dollars is highly material to a transaction of that size. If it was a $3000 procedure, not so much.

Accounting is a tricky thing, it is clear that they are making a choice to do this through a fee. They could easily require that those wishing to collect the tissues be responsible for the collection, storage and direct costs without the charge if they choose to do so. If they did so, there would be no question of profit.

Even arguing that they do the procedures on a subsidized basis below cost doesn't really help because it just evokes the us of federal money to improperly subsidize abortions.

In any event, the fetal tissue is going to be produced as a result of the procedure, whether or not they sell it, so as an accounting matter allocating any overhead or other costs is a bookkeeping trick and not a real approximation of whether a fee includes gross margin increases over the incremental costs. It is purely a matter of paper work whether any particular margin over incremental costs is "profit" but the rational view would be that it is fact profit.

If the third video is true and they paid bounties for collecting higher value tissue it's almost certainly indefensible, and likely illegal.

There's no reason they couldn't do this in a cost neutral manner that complied with law, there's also no reason they should get a free pass for choosing to do it in a manner that does violate law just because you believe they have an important mission. Lots of people with important missions have to comply with the law.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
$100 additional dollars is highly material to a transaction of that size.
Indeed. Which is also why the additional cost of the procedure is relevant. If they are doing a $750 abortion and charge $100 for tissue retrieval, and it costs them an additional $90 to store and ship that tissue, they are "making" an additional $10 on that transaction.

quote:
They could easily require that those wishing to collect the tissues be responsible for the collection, storage and direct costs without the charge if they choose to do so.
How would they do that? As those charges are variable, and those receiving the tissues are not actually doing the shipping or cutting or collection themselves, how would they do that without stating a price? If you wanted to buy a brain from Planned Parenthood, how would you know how much it would cost you if they didn't tell you?

quote:
as an accounting matter allocating any overhead or other costs is a bookkeeping trick
Not true. The additional overhead comes from the shipping and storage costs. It is not particularly easy to ship a liver intact.

quote:
If the third video is true and they paid bounties for collecting higher value tissue...
You'll note that this is a mischaracterization of what is said in that video.

quote:
There's no reason they couldn't do this in a cost neutral manner that complied with law...
There's no reason to believe this isn't what they're doing.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Excellent point, Wayward. Kudos. But that's an issue of degree of wrong, idnit?

Only if you accept the unsupported assertion that there's a statistically significant difference in level of risk.

Given the choice between two equally safe places to cross the street, it might take me slightly longer to walk one block further down the road, cross the street at the next light and then walk back up the block if I want to see something at the far end of the block, but it doesn't appreciably change my level of risk in crossing the street.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
They could easily require that those wishing to collect the tissues be responsible for the collection, storage and direct costs without the charge if they choose to do so.
That's logically impossible. "You're responsible for the costs we incur to do these things, but we can't charge you for them"?

Or are you suggesting that if a research facility wants a tissue donation, then the procedure and necessary on-site processing must now be conducted at that facility, using that facility's personnel instead? Charging them for the associated costs is how "making the responsible for the costs" works.

quote:
Even arguing that they do the procedures on a subsidized basis below cost doesn't really help because it just evokes the us of federal money to improperly subsidize abortions.
Only if you're trying to be deceptive, since PP has more funding sources than just federal money. The organization choosing to subsidize it out of its general operating budget, not out of separately accounted Federal funds, doesn't imply that it's being Federally subsidized, only specious accusations of such do.

quote:
If the third video is true and they paid bounties for collecting higher value tissue it's almost certainly indefensible, and likely illegal.
More delicate tissue takes more time and effort to preserve and prepare properly, especially if collected in a way that does not meaningfully affect the risk of the procedure. Presenting recouping the costs of a more expensive process as a bounty is exceptionally deceptive.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
We should also remember that abortions account for about 3 percent of the services Planned Parenthood does.

So selling tissues is really a miniscule part of their operation.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
A defense that boils down to "they don't do it often" is not a defense. It's a rationalization. Commiting a feloy cannot be excused by saying you only do it now and then.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
If they don't do it often, and we are talking a couple bucks of profiteering... It's a pretty good defense against, "look at what these monsters are doing for profit!"

That it happens at all, and that outrages people, I get. It's not however the smoking gun to put a stop to abortions or end planned parenthood for good. That said, the media is playing along nicely, so I don't know how it will go.

Could do some damage to their rep, or it could raly the troops like gun sales spiking in the face of stricter gun law proposals. Either way it's good news I suppose so... TOOT TOOT All aboard the hype train!
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
The argument here wasn't "they don't do it often" but rather "this is not a major profit center for them, no one is getting rich from it, and there is no motive for criminal behavior here."
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
[QUOTE]They could easily require that those wishing to collect the tissues be responsible for the collection, storage and direct costs without the charge if they choose to do so.
How would they do that?
You and Prytolin both seem hung up on this issue, though it's actually a simple one to account for. PP could inform those interested in the tissue when it would be available, and let the interested parties arrange for collection and storage. It happens all the time across many areas of the business world, including for perishable items. I'm not convinced, by the way, that the analogy to tissues used for transplants is the correct one, that tissue has to be still living to make the process viable. I seriously doubt that EVERY donative use of these tissues has that same immediacy and requirements for containment and storage.

In any event, it's not PP's problem, its the person who takes the tissue if PP makes it available at that persons cost. PP is CHOOSING to be involved more than the minimum they would have to be. Given the specific rules on human tissues, they should be limited to the incremental expenses period.
quote:
As those charges are variable, and those receiving the tissues are not actually doing the shipping or cutting or collection themselves, how would they do that without stating a price?
The done retains a company to collect the tissues. There are plenty of medical transport companies that could handle it.
quote:
If you wanted to buy a brain from Planned Parenthood, how would you know how much it would cost you if they didn't tell you?
By law you can't "buy a brain" from PP. You understand that right? But the simple answer, is again, if you didn't want to pick it up yourself (which should be free) you'd pay want the medical transport company charged you.
quote:
quote:
$100 additional dollars is highly material to a transaction of that size.
Indeed. Which is also why the additional cost of the procedure is relevant. If they are doing a $750 abortion and charge $100 for tissue retrieval, and it costs them an additional $90 to store and ship that tissue, they are "making" an additional $10 on that transaction
Which is inappropriate and solely a result of their agreeing to incur the $90 cost and bill it back. A choice they are making.
quote:
quote:
as an accounting matter allocating any overhead or other costs is a bookkeeping trick
Not true. The additional overhead comes from the shipping and storage costs. It is not particularly easy to ship a liver intact.
We have a different definition of "Not true". Everything I said is true, what you're referring to is an incremental cost, not overhead, and is something that is appropriate to offset under the law.
quote:
quote:
If the third video is true and they paid bounties for collecting higher value tissue...
You'll note that this is a mischaracterization of what is said in that video.
I didn't watch the video, I've only read quotes. Are you asserting that the employee did not claim her compensation increased for recovering high value tissue intact?
quote:
quote:
There's no reason they couldn't do this in a cost neutral manner that complied with law...
There's no reason to believe this isn't what they're doing.
Actually there is. There's reason to believe they are not doing this in a cost neutral manner simply based on the gotcha videos. That doesn't make it true though, it should be investigated.

What there is "no reason" to do is to dismiss it out of hand because you agree with their mission.
quote:
quote:
They could easily require that those wishing to collect the tissues be responsible for the collection, storage and direct costs without the charge if they choose to do so.
That's logically impossible.
Then you shouldn't have any trouble demonstrating the same with a logical proof. Please do, you are so far off from correct here it would be amusing to watch you flounder at it.
quote:
"You're responsible for the costs we incur to do these things, but we can't charge you for them"?
PP doesn't have to incur the costs in the first place. They could give the tissue to the donee's agent straight from the procedure and be done with it. They're choosing to facilitate the process, which is not something they have to do. It's a motive speculation as to WHY they are choosing to do it (and that's true for both YOU and the otherside),
quote:
Or are you suggesting that if a research facility wants a tissue donation, then the procedure and necessary on-site processing must now be conducted at that facility, using that facility's personnel instead?
No never said that nonsense.
quote:
Charging them for the associated costs is how "making the responsible for the costs" works.
No one has to incur costs and charge them out. That's a choice.
quote:
quote:
Even arguing that they do the procedures on a subsidized basis below cost doesn't really help because it just evokes the us of federal money to improperly subsidize abortions.
Only if you're trying to be deceptive, since PP has more funding sources than just federal money. The organization choosing to subsidize it out of its general operating budget, not out of separately accounted Federal funds, doesn't imply that it's being Federally subsidized, only specious accusations of such do.
You've launched how many tirades against dark money organizations with better accounting than PP? Lol.

There is no doubt that federal dollars subsidize abortions in any organization that mixes abortions and federal grants. It's nothing but an accounting trick that makes it appear otherwise. Luckily for them, such accounting tricks are legal and respected. But that doesn't mean you get to pretend that it's anything more than an accounting trick.

You guys are too emotional on this.

[ July 30, 2015, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
PP could inform those interested in the tissue when it would be available, and let the interested parties arrange for collection and storage.
Think about what you're saying. You're telling me that PP is going to contact "interested parties" to tell them, "Hey, we're going to be aborting two late-term babies this week. Do you want anything?" And if they say yes, the group that says yes is going to line up a storage facility, a technician to do the extraction, and a shipping firm? Forgive me, but I don't think you've actually given that due consideration; it's patently ridiculous.

quote:
By law you can't "buy a brain" from PP. You understand that right?
Sure. Of course, that's a meaningless legal distinction, meant only to salve the conscience of idiots. The meaningful distinction is that PP cannot net non-negligible profit from the sale of organs. That the word "sale" is being waved around like a wand (or treated like the third rail on a subway) is just a relic of human stupidity.

quote:
Which is inappropriate and solely a result of their agreeing to incur the $90 cost and bill it back.
You're familiar with the way non-profits calculate profit, right? I have no doubt that many of their $100 charges actually cost them $90; I'm also sure that many of their $100 charges cost them $110. To avoid having to do the ridiculously inefficient and wasteful nickel-and-diming approach you suggest -- which would only waste tissue and cost everyone involved more money -- they have to be willing to accept a certain amount of arbitrary value (either positive or negative.)

quote:
There's reason to believe they are not doing this in a cost neutral manner simply based on the gotcha videos.
No, there isn't. All three videos so far make it clear that the people speaking believe that they are not substantially profiting from tissue sales.

quote:
There is no doubt that federal dollars subsidize abortions in any organization that mixes abortions and federal grants. It's nothing but an accounting trick that makes it appear otherwise.
Interesting. How do you feel about political donations from 501(c)s? Would non-political funding given to such an organization really be nothing but an accounting trick meant to subsidize political donations?
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
A defense that boils down to "they don't do it often" is not a defense. It's a rationalization. Commiting a feloy cannot be excused by saying you only do it now and then.
True, except that they haven't committed any crime. You really should stop saying that. It's getting to the point of being libelous. [Roll Eyes]

The point was, at $30 - $100 each, from a procedure that is maybe 3 percent of the total work the organization does, there ain't nobody going to be buying Lamborghinis anytime soon, even if they made 100 percent profit (instead of, at best, breaking even). [Smile]

But it has been clearly established by now that these videos are a bunch of lies created by splicing together pieces. Why we are still discussing such obvious fabrications is beyond me.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
[quote[ Everything I said is true, what you're referring to is an incremental cost, not overhead, and is something that is appropriate to offset under the law.[/quote]
And, is, very specifically, all that they're billing for. Different types of processing and shipping cost different amounts, from cost of extraction to different storage and preservation, so any given sample incurs a different incremental cost.

Even if the recipient offered to be on call to pick it up, is would still need to be processed by PP for transport and stored till they could come to retrieve it. IF they make the more rational choice of using a medical transport company (assuming that it wasn't processed in a way that could use standard shipping) then they still would need to reimburse PP for arranging the shipment when needed, since it's PP that would be on the hook to pay for it. The company could set up a complicated reflexive shipping payment scheme, but why, when it's logistically simpler and explicitly legal for PP to take care of handling shipping arrangements and billing them back on an as needed basis.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
No one has to incur costs and charge them out.
The tissue is being collected in PP's facility and shipped from it. That means it must incur the costs, since any sue of its facility is a cost to it. You're only right in as much as PP could chose to just eat the cost and not bill it out, bot not that it can somehow magically not incur an incremental cost for procedures that take place in its facilities.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
You've launched how many tirades against dark money organizations with better accounting than PP? Lol.
Hoe much does tea cost in China again? Trackable accounting has nothing to do with the process by which private citizens can make anonymous donations to groups that can then spend unlimited amounts of money supporting political campaigns. IF the issue had something to do with knowing who's giving money to PP, that might be relevant, not with accounting to keep direct federal grants separate from other funding sources.

quote:
There is no doubt that federal dollars subsidize abortions in any organization that mixes abortions and federal grants. It's nothing but an accounting trick that makes it appear otherwise.
Only if you speciously define all accounting as "tricks".

It's accounting that makes it clear that its not happening- that's part pf the point of having formal rules of accounting in the first place. It's the legal rules for accounting that explicitly define the fact that federal grant money is not being used. But the only way to call it a trick is to point out that all US dollars are federal money- that it's all, ultimately issues by the federal government or by banks using the accounting rules that it has set down to allow them to create it for lending purposes.

Money is a federal accounting tool; the rules of accounting that it makes for how if can be used aren't tricks- they define its proper and legal use, including definitions of how to keep various accounts separate for the sake of handling federal grants.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Excellent point, Wayward. Kudos. But that's an issue of degree of wrong, idnit?

Only if you accept the unsupported assertion that there's a statistically significant difference in level of risk.


did you forget that i am talking about an ethical conflict of interest, or do you not understand the difference between an ethical conflict of interest or the moral foundation of law?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The argument here wasn't "they don't do it often" but rather "this is not a major profit center for them, no one is getting rich from it, and there is no motive for criminal behavior here."

While there is evidence of unconscionable acts, and argument for unethical and illegal acts, i have seen no evidence of actual criminality.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
PP could inform those interested in the tissue when it would be available, and let the interested parties arrange for collection and storage.
Think about what you're saying.
Lol, you guys continually make mountains out of mole hills, do you have any experience in the private sector? Things a thousand times more complicated than this get done all the time. The medical researchers are highly advanced and bright people, and generally if they are involved in research they are well funded. This is a trivial problem for them to resolve, not a master work of difficulty. More than likely they'd sign an overall delivery agreement with a middle man, a medical transport company that would arrange the pick-ups.
quote:
You're telling me that PP is going to contact "interested parties" to tell them, "Hey, we're going to be aborting two late-term babies this week. Do you want anything?"
Happens all the time, but they wouldn't actually have to do much more than they do today on that front and less overall if the responsibility was on the donee.
quote:
And if they say yes, the group that says yes is going to line up a storage facility, a technician to do the extraction, and a shipping firm?
Only if they are moronic will they fail to line it up ahead of time. Which given they currently line it up with PP ahead of time seems unlikely.

Can I ask you seriously, to at least think about whether an "issue" you are raising has an easy or obvious solution before you throw it out there?
quote:
Forgive me, but I don't think you've actually given that due consideration; it's patently ridiculous.
Maybe you should look at existing medical transport companies before you label an idea "patently ridiculous."
quote:
quote:
By law you can't "buy a brain" from PP. You understand that right?
Sure. Of course, that's a meaningless legal distinction, meant only to salve the conscience of idiots. The meaningful distinction is that PP cannot net non-negligible profit from the sale of organs. That the word "sale" is being waved around like a wand (or treated like the third rail on a subway) is just a relic of human stupidity.
Lol. The sale is illegal, that's the whole point here. I'm glad you reject the semantic difference but that's awful advice for a group that doesn't want to get charged with a felony.
quote:
You're familiar with the way non-profits calculate profit, right?
Yes, I actually understand the accounting and the tax implications. And not just in a vague "I've no doubt" kind of way. And whether it's ridiculous or not, they do pay a lot of attention to specific tax compliance.
quote:
quote:
There's reason to believe they are not doing this in a cost neutral manner simply based on the gotcha videos.
No, there isn't. All three videos so far make it clear that the people speaking believe that they are not substantially profiting from tissue sales.
And? What they believe isn't relevant, what they said is enough to cause a violation if true (though again this is a factual question and it may not ultimately be something that is actionable).
quote:
Interesting. How do you feel about political donations from 501(c)s?
501(c)(3)'s shouldn't make them. 501(c)(4)'s should keep them within their required limits. Money out, is a bit different than money in though so I'm not sure what you think is analogous there.
quote:
Would non-political funding given to such an organization really be nothing but an accounting trick meant to subsidize political donations?
Who knows what its "meant" to do, but yes any funding going into an organization intent on maximizing its permitted political activity will be subsidized by the non-politically intended contributions it receives.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The argument here wasn't "they don't do it often" but rather "this is not a major profit center for them, no one is getting rich from it, and there is no motive for criminal behavior here."

While there is evidence of unconscionable acts, and argument for unethical and illegal acts, i have seen no evidence of actual criminality.
The only evidence is that surgical procedures can put off people who are squeemish. That something looks gross to the untrained eye downstairs make it unconscionable.

[ July 31, 2015, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
A defense that boils down to "they don't do it often" is not a defense. It's a rationalization. Commiting a feloy cannot be excused by saying you only do it now and then.
True, except that they haven't committed any crime. You really should stop saying that. It's getting to the point of being libelous. [Roll Eyes]

The point was, at $30 - $100 each, from a procedure that is maybe 3 percent of the total work the organization does, there ain't nobody going to be buying Lamborghinis anytime soon, even if they made 100 percent profit (instead of, at best, breaking even). [Smile]

But it has been clearly established by now that these videos are a bunch of lies created by splicing together pieces. Why we are still discussing such obvious fabrications is beyond me.

Trafficking in human body parts is a crime.

The idea that they don't make a lot of money at it is another rationalization, not a defense.

The entire videos are released and viewable. Dismissing it like you are is itself a lie being pushed by those who rationalize planned parenthoods activities.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:

All three videos so far make it clear that the people speaking believe that they are not substantially profiting from tissue sales.

That would be true if you consider buying, say a Lamborghini, as something not substantially expensive.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Ginde at the abortion-clinic headquarters of PPRM in Denver to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs. When the actors request intact fetal specimens, Ginde reveals that in PPRM’s abortion practice, “Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.”

If someone delivers before PP can get to them, they still perform the abortion and deliver a "intact specimen" to buyers.

Take a moment to fully visualize the scene that Grinde describes.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Trafficking in human body parts is a crime.

The idea that they don't make a lot of money at it is another rationalization, not a defense.

So you are against organ donation full stop? Or you think that the hospitals, doctors, nurses, and techs should only perform transplants pro bono?
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Trafficking in human body parts is a crime.
That is obviously not strictly true, or else every heart-transplant surgeon should be arrested immediately! [Smile] Every medical school with a cadaver should be raided! And every museum with formaldehyde-preserved specimen should be shut down and the buildings burned to the ground! [Eek!]

And every legislator who wrote a law regulating the trafficking of human body parts should be tossed in jail and the key thrown away. [Smile]

You need to re-examine your premise and see exactly when trafficking in human body parts is illegal and how it applies to this situation. Because common sense tells us that no one is making a ton of cash on these pieces of fetal tissue. We even have experts saying that they are not. We have the actual person who is alledged to have said they are making money off of them saying they are not making money off of them. We have other organizations that are buying the tissues from Planned Parenthood and selling them for substantially more. And this is a practice that people have known has been going on for years, if not decades, and no one noticed it until some fly-by-night organization releases some highly-edited videos that blow the lid off of everything?

This is not, and never has been, about "trafficking in human body parts." It has been about abortion, and another lame-ass, badly-done attempt in stopping it by distortion and lies. Because abortion opponents can't get traction from the actual issue, so they have to lie and libel in order to get some attention to their cause. Classic "the ends justify the means" morality. Lying, slandering and breaking the law because ours is the righteous cause. [Roll Eyes]

No laws are being broken, Rafi. The only reason the Right is getting all hot and bothered by all this, the only reason that presidential candidates are calling for investigations, is because they need to keep their base riled up so they can get them to send money and vote in the next election. And they don't care how many people they hurt along the way to do it.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Ginde at the abortion-clinic headquarters of PPRM in Denver to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs. When the actors request intact fetal specimens, Ginde reveals that in PPRM’s abortion practice, “Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.”

If someone delivers before PP can get to them, they still perform the abortion and deliver a "intact specimen" to buyers.

Take a moment to fully visualize the scene that Grinde describes.

What do you mean "still perform the abortion"? And abortion is a premature termination of a pregnancy. If The woman miscarries or has a stillbirth, then there's no pregnancy to abort.

If woman's body performed a natural abortion, delivering non-viable fetal tissue, then they can still collect, process, and transfer it to a research facility that can benefit from it.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:

All three videos so far make it clear that the people speaking believe that they are not substantially profiting from tissue sales.

That would be true if you consider buying, say a Lamborghini, as something not substantially expensive.
Exactly how many Lamborghinis are you suggesting PP owns?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
The idea that they don't make a lot of money at it is another rationalization, not a defense.
Except that not making a lot of money at trafficking body parts is specifically what makes it legal for them to traffic in body parts. The text of the law has been linked here already, I believe.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
If someone delivers before PP can get to them, they still perform the abortion and deliver a "intact specimen" to buyers.
I thought for a bit before deciding to elaborate on this.

This is precisely what happened to my wife when she went in for her abortion. She was farther along than we knew or that the doctors determined; assuming she was into her fourth month, they gave her a shot and stuck some chemically-treated sticks of something into her and told her to go back home and wait overnight; by the next morning, she would have dilated enough to make the rest of the process possible.

Except that we knew very early on that something was wrong. The pain was excruciating, by far the worst thing she'd ever felt. The call-in nurse suggested she sit in a warm bath to try to relax her muscles -- but within minutes of helping her into the bath, I heard her shriek. She had "delivered" a stillborn baby.

To make a long story a little shorter, suffice it to say that this is what is being discussed here -- not viable babies being destroyed following a live birth, but dead or dying babies being used for tissue donation (as ours was).
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Rafi's whole idea here seems to be to repeat the sound bites over and over without engaging with any explanation of how the premises are flawed, statements were taken out of context, details that were left out, etc.

He's doing what this guy fears:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/27/the-memification-of-planned-parenthood/

Sadly, this technique seems to work, but I think it works in one way: keeps the pro-life base riled up. It certainly doesn't foster useful debate.

I suppose it might lead to let's-all-pretend-this-outrage-is-legitimate Republicans in Congress voting to withhold funds from PP, which would be great news for people who need birth control and STD treatments.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The argument here wasn't "they don't do it often" but rather "this is not a major profit center for them, no one is getting rich from it, and there is no motive for criminal behavior here."

While there is evidence of unconscionable acts, and argument for unethical and illegal acts, i have seen no evidence of actual criminality.
The only evidence is that surgical procedures can put off people who are squeemish. That something looks gross to the untrained eye downstairs make it unconscionable.
Spoken like a PR firm for Texan agricultural conglomerate. You know they actually lobby for laws saying that animal rights activists who take and publish pictures of animal cruelty in agriculture are "terrorists"? That's the pool you're swimming in when you make these arguments that people need to be protected from pictures and information that they might misinterpret.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I don't see anywhere he's saying that people need to be protected from those images -- only, rather, that those images are appeals to emotion.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Trafficking in human body parts is a crime.

The idea that they don't make a lot of money at it is another rationalization, not a defense.

So you are against organ donation full stop? Or you think that the hospitals, doctors, nurses, and techs should only perform transplants pro bono?
I think you need to explore the law around this a little more before you try to draw such a false equivalence
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Ginde at the abortion-clinic headquarters of PPRM in Denver to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs. When the actors request intact fetal specimens, Ginde reveals that in PPRM’s abortion practice, “Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.”

If someone delivers before PP can get to them, they still perform the abortion and deliver a "intact specimen" to buyers.

Take a moment to fully visualize the scene that Grinde describes.

What do you mean "still perform the abortion"? And abortion is a premature termination of a pregnancy. If The woman miscarries or has a stillbirth, then there's no pregnancy to abort.

If woman's body performed a natural abortion, delivering non-viable fetal tissue, then they can still collect, process, and transfer it to a research facility that can benefit from it.

Note that the terminology used is "delivered" not miscarried or the other terms you're trying on.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:

All three videos so far make it clear that the people speaking believe that they are not substantially profiting from tissue sales.

That would be true if you consider buying, say a Lamborghini, as something not substantially expensive.
Exactly how many Lamborghinis are you suggesting PP owns?
I dunno if they own any, I just know they're apparently making enough off this to joke about buying one if they wanted it.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I don't see anywhere he's saying that people need to be protected from those images -- only, rather, that those images are appeals to emotion.

Oh, I think his argument is better and more specific than saying that they are appeals to Emotion. the Tank Man picture and the famous Vietnam execution picture are appeals to emotion, and yet more valid in their appeal than the typical pro life fetus picture. An appeal to emotion is not in itself an ad misericordiam fallacy, any more than insulting someone is an ad hominiem fallacy.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
About this:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Looks like somebody went full Snowden:
quote:
The women's health and abortion provider said Monday it has reported the crime to the Department of Justice and the FBI.
"Extremists who oppose Planned Parenthood's mission and services have launched an attack on our information systems, and have called on the world's most sophisticated hackers to assist them in breaching our systems and threatening the privacy and safety of our staff members," said Planned Parenthood Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens Monday afternoon.

They got emails apparently. This could be interesting. Love that they label them "extremists".
They reported the crime, asked for donations to help. The only problem is, PP was lying:
quote:
Planned Parenthood botched a portion of its difficult public relations campaign when it was unable to provide any evidence at all for a claim that the group’s site was under attack and had to be shut down. As explained in “Planned Parenthood ‘Hacking’ Sure Looks Like An Orchestrated PR Stunt,” Planned Parenthood’s web page seemed to function fine. It just replaced the page with a claim of an attack, but then directed visitors to give the group money or otherwise help with their public relations campaign.

Some in the media, such as Reuters, reflexively ran with the abortion provider’s claim. But the Associated Press and CNN noted the lack of evidence for any attack on the website this week.

By Thursday the group changed its tune, saying the site was down for maintenance, not because of an attack.

Did they falsely report a crime to the FBI and DOJ? Isn't that a crime itself?

So far, the only ones proven to have lied is PP itself. Extremists, heh.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Did they falsely report a crime to the FBI and DOJ? Isn't that a crime itself?"

It would be a crime if they filed a false report, but i doubt they did, and doubt that the obama admin would prosecute.

Falsely claiming to be a crime victim to solicit funds is civil fraud at least. Not sure about criminal fraud off the top of my head. Civil fraud means treble damages. Any donor who reasonably relied on Planet Parenthood's claim of being hacked may sue them for triple their donation back. Since attorney's fees are not iirc included, this would look more like a class action. Fortunately for planet parenthood, its donors are less likely to sue than Obama is to prosecute.

To be fair to Planned Parenthood, a sizable chunk of the animus against it (and its founder Meg Sanger is the crypto-anti-birth control agenda. I wish PP would moderate its language and stance towards late term abortion but i think that its azctual collapse would hurt America by cutting off BIRTH CONTROL access to the poor.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Giving them the benefit of the doubt on this one, and noting that the text of the landing page specifically gave their scheduling and contact phone numbers (as well as a link to a donation page hosted elsewhere), it's entirely possible that the hack targeted their CRM functionality. Which would certainly allow them to retain control of the cosmetic parts of the site while also being unable to take appointments or other customer contact info until things were repaired.

But I'm just speculating, and it's certainly possible they were lying about being hacked. It seems more than a little uncharitable to leap to that conclusion, though.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Ginde at the abortion-clinic headquarters of PPRM in Denver to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs. When the actors request intact fetal specimens, Ginde reveals that in PPRM’s abortion practice, “Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.”

If someone delivers before PP can get to them, they still perform the abortion and deliver a "intact specimen" to buyers.

Take a moment to fully visualize the scene that Grinde describes.

What do you mean "still perform the abortion"? And abortion is a premature termination of a pregnancy. If The woman miscarries or has a stillbirth, then there's no pregnancy to abort.

If woman's body performed a natural abortion, delivering non-viable fetal tissue, then they can still collect, process, and transfer it to a research facility that can benefit from it.

Note that the terminology used is "delivered" not miscarried or the other terms you're trying on.
Stillborn or miscarried fetuses are still "delivered". It is the correct medical term.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Tom, are you suggesting that prolifed hackers asked people to send mon ey to Planet Parenthood?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I am suggesting that Planned Parenthood may have lost control of their CRM servers, but retained control of their cosmetic front end. That's perfectly consistent with what was observed.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Exactly how many Lamborghinis are you suggesting PP owns?

I dunno if they own any, I just know they're apparently making enough off this to joke about buying one if they wanted it.
BAsed on what financial data. All we have is a quote of a bit of ironic gallows humor from a PP executive that emphasizes the fact that they're not making anything off if it.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Spoken like a PR firm for Texan agricultural conglomerate. You know they actually lobby for laws saying that animal rights activists who take and publish pictures of animal cruelty in agriculture are "terrorists"? That's the pool you're swimming in when you make these arguments that people need to be protected from pictures and information that they might misinterpret.

Who's calling that people need to be protected from them? Please stop making things up- to the point here of inverting may argument completely.

I'm saying that calling for a procedures to be banned because you, as a layman, watch a video of the procedure and couldn't stand the sight of blood, is completely absurd. I didn't say "ban videos of procedures" I said "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen"

Any surgical videos are going to look grotesque to the squeamish. So if your only argument is that you found the process personally revolting, then maybe you should find something better to do with your time than try to ban people from doing things that gross you out. Otherwise we may as well ban all open cavity surgery and a good deal of internal medicine in general.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
So if your only argument is that you found the process personally revolting, then maybe you should find something better to do with your time than try to ban people from doing things that gross you out.
Well, that does explain why Conservatives are so against gay marriage. [Smile]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Spoken like a PR firm for Texan agricultural conglomerate. You know they actually lobby for laws saying that animal rights activists who take and publish pictures of animal cruelty in agriculture are "terrorists"? That's the pool you're swimming in when you make these arguments that people need to be protected from pictures and information that they might misinterpret.

Who's calling that people need to be protected from them? Please stop making things up- to the point here of inverting may argument completely.

I'm saying that calling for a procedures to be banned because you, as a layman, watch a video of the procedure and couldn't stand the sight of blood, is completely absurd. I didn't say "ban videos of procedures" I said "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen"

Any surgical videos are going to look grotesque to the squeamish. So if your only argument is that you found the process personally revolting, then maybe you should find something better to do with your time than try to ban people from doing things that gross you out. Otherwise we may as well ban all open cavity surgery and a good deal of internal medicine in general.

Again, arent you taking the big meat producing conglomerate's argument against animal rights activists? The argument of Japanese invaders in Nanking to the world reaction to the pics of atrocities that were smuggled out. "If you cant take the heat get out of the kitchen"? If what we are doing looks ugly, then dont look?
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Again, arent you taking the big meat producing conglomerate's argument against animal rights activists? The argument of Japanese invaders in Nanking to the world reaction to the pics of atrocities that were smuggled out. "If you cant take the heat get out of the kitchen"? If what we are doing looks ugly, then dont look?

I'll butt in here for just a moment because I think there's a subtle point being lost in your exchange with Pyrtolin. Pyr is saying that being grossed out by something has nothing to do with whether or not that thing is good or moral. If the two were directly correlated then any kind of surgery would be evil.

However I believe Pete (and correct me if I'm wrong) is working with the hidden premise that human beings are constituted in such a way that we have an innate sense of right and wrong and that when a thing feels gross or bad to us this is not merely an aesthetic reaction to an unappetizing sight but may actually be hard-wired to be informative about the moral nature of the offending thing.

If this is what you're both getting at then it does become important to identify things that, as Tom mentioned, make us feel 'squicked out', but at the same time this is not sufficient to demonstrate that there's anything wrong. But conversely it doesn't make much sense for Pyr to argue that merely because the aesthetic nature of a thing is icky that we should assume we feel squicked out strictly because of this. It would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to assume that any time we feel squicked out it's only because we're seeing stuff that is unfamiliar to us, like a surgery.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Again, arent you taking the big meat producing conglomerate's argument against animal rights activists?
No. Because the meat conglomerate is trying to prevent the pictures in the first place, not simply advising that a layman may not understand and leap to wrong conclusions based on viewing the images from a point of ignorance.

I am not arguing that the pictures should not be available for those that choose to look, so trying to make that comparison is a false equivalence.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
However I believe Pete (and correct me if I'm wrong) is working with the hidden premise that human beings are constituted in such a way that we have an innate sense of right and wrong and that when a thing feels gross or bad to us this is not merely an aesthetic reaction to an unappetizing sight but may actually be hard-wired to be informative about the moral nature of the offending thing.
We may well be hardwired to be revolted by things that would indicate harm or danger to us, but that's exactly why surgical images fall into a psychological blind spot for us. Images of gore and viscera very easily trigger an irrational response that while it might be productive in other situations, is not productive when we're discussing issues that require intentionally breaking that normal division between what's supposed to be on the inside and the outside.

quote:
It would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to assume that any time we feel squicked out it's only because we're seeing stuff that is unfamiliar to us, like a surgery.
Be that as it may, we are, in fact, talking about surgery here. And deliberate efforts to present surgical imagery and descriptions as self sufficient evidence.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Pyr is saying that being grossed out by something has nothing to do with whether or not that thing is good or moral."

That part of what Pyr said i actually agree with as correct.

"However I believe Pete (and correct me if I'm wrong) is working with the hidden premise that human beings are constituted in such a way that we have an innate sense of right and wrong and that when a thing feels gross or bad to us this is not merely an aesthetic reaction to an unappetizing sight but may actually be hard-wired to be informative about the moral nature of the offending thing."

No. I dont believe that right and wrong are hardwired, and that's certainly not a premise to my argument. I dont believe that our farm and domestic animals have "rights" but I believe and acknowledge that animal rights advocates make moral arguments. Right and wrong are largely (but imo not entirely) formed by our social dialog, so to prevent schisms that lead to civil war, it's imperative that we have open dialog about issues that bear on morality and thereby construct our collective sense of morality. Even if it means that we end up with idiotic constructions like corporations are people and fetuses arent.

The most powerful image argument that pro lifers have is the image of a 10 week embryo with the caption, "a person's a person no matter how small."
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
My Facebook page has been full of images of Cecil the lion and the current PP uproar. I was thinking about the comparisons between this and the PP outrage.

It seems that the real outrage in both cases has more to do with the hunt or the abortion than it does with the legality of Cecil's death or the sale/reimbursement for fetal tissue.

Cecil was likely killed illegally but the hunting of threatened species by those who can afford to pay is frequently legal. There is nothing wrong with those who are morally opposed to big game hunting to be upset.

In the same way those who oppose abortion see the PP video and are horrified at what they see as the abuse of the body of a human. They have a right to feel morally outraged.

I have some issues with how the media is handling the PP video however. Congress made the reimbursement for costs legal. Some of those who voted to support the original bill are now attacking PP. There are certainly costs involved in the preparation, separation, and collection of specific fetal tissue (or baby parts) in addition to their transport. The above would require a paid skilled professional. Looking at "the price list" I didn't see any costs that looked over the top. Heck spend 10 minutes with the doctor and it will cost the same as a liver. We find this gross which is really the reason the video was made.

To me the real bottom line for both Cecil and PP is that if you have an issue with abortion continue to push for legislative and/or constitutional changes. Since the third trimester coincides with the ability for an infant to survive outside of his/her mother start there. If you are opposed to big game hunting put pressure on the legality of it. Promote additional protections for endangered animals.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
In the same way those who oppose abortion see the PP video and are horrified at what they see as the abuse of the body of a human. They have a right to feel morally outraged.
I agree that people have a right to feel morally outraged over the apparent abuse of a body. I feel it myself.

What is outrageous, though, is that this outrage was created basically through misrepresentation. The videos were edited to make it seem that PP was making a profit off these dead tissues. It is implied that these transactions are criminal. Both of these allegations have been shown to be lies.

And it worked. Congress is in a huff; Bobby Jindal cut off Medicaid funding to Lousiana Planned Parenthood because of the scandal, even though they do no abortions in Lousiana; the editorial cartoons are having a field day. Heck, look at Rafi's outrage and continued insistence that PP is doing criminal activities. All based on a lie.

It would be like saying that not only did that stupid dentist kill Cecil, but he also illegally sold the meat, because those who broke the story knew that just killing Cecil wouldn't have caused enough outrage. [Roll Eyes]

If we let them get away with fooling people like this, what's next? Doctored videos of Presidential candidates, senators, congressmen, Supreme Court justices doing "illegal" things?

When out-and-out propoganda rules, then there are no rules, and the most powerful voices will dictate reality. [Frown]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

When out-and-out propoganda rules, then there are no rules, and the most powerful voices will dictate reality. [Frown]

Welcome to reality.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
As they say at work, Perception is Reality!

(Until Reality comes and bites you in the @ss. [Smile] )
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Trafficking in human body parts is a crime.
That is obviously not strictly true, or else every heart-transplant surgeon should be arrested immediately! [Smile]
Why? Do you think the law defines organ donations as trafficking in human body parts? I seriously doubt it.

But if your heart surgeon was able to get you a heart transplant without say waiting for your turn on the donor list if you gave him a "processing fee," we would be talking jail time.
quote:
You need to re-examine your premise and see exactly when trafficking in human body parts is illegal and how it applies to this situation. Because common sense tells us that no one is making a ton of cash on these pieces of fetal tissue.
Tons of cash is not the measure. Profit is the measure.
quote:
We even have experts saying that they are not.
Not that I've seen. This all accounting, there is no expertise that's going to be conclusive. Like I said though, there's no reason they have to incur costs in the first place.
quote:
We have other organizations that are buying the tissues from Planned Parenthood and selling them for substantially more.
And we have activists undercover pretending to be interested in buying human organs, and PP staff saying the most absurd things and making statements that appear to be designed to structure payments of profit to appear otherwise.
quote:
And this is a practice that people have known has been going on for years, if not decades, and no one noticed it until some fly-by-night organization releases some highly-edited videos that blow the lid off of everything?
It would be more correct to say, the media had no interest in covering (why would that be? Wouldn't be because the media knows this kind of coverage would cause PP to become reviled now would it? Why's the media skipping news for political reasons again?). Clearly someone did notice.
quote:
This is not, and never has been, about "trafficking in human body parts."
I think you're honestly doing a disservice here. I for one am pro-choice and opposed to selling fetal tissue. I doubt I'm the only one, which means at least for some people this is COMPLETELY about trafficking in human body parts.
quote:
It has been about abortion, and another lame-ass, badly-done attempt in stopping it by distortion and lies. Because abortion opponents can't get traction from the actual issue, so they have to lie and libel in order to get some attention to their cause.
It's interesting to me that it's people who are fanatical about defending abortion that seem the most unwilling to engage in thinking debate. I think we have a massive problem with people pre-empting debate by claiming the other side is extreme.

Heck, just as I said on the first day, it looks like PP's web site wasn't down as a result of hackers but by choice, so they could claim victim status. This seems to be a common tactic, the pre-emptive victim claim.
quote:
Classic "the ends justify the means" morality. Lying, slandering and breaking the law because ours is the righteous cause. [Roll Eyes]
Or maybe blinding defending PP, whether or not they broke a law, because you consider the ends worth whatever means they employ?
quote:
No laws are being broken, Rafi.
Which is you confusing opinion with fact. There's no way to know if laws are being broken, but there is certainly enough to believe they could be (even if ultimately it's more of a technical violation than a substantive - ie charging too much back but without a real intent to profit).
quote:
The only reason the Right is getting all hot and bothered by all this, the only reason that presidential candidates are calling for investigations, is because they need to keep their base riled up so they can get them to send money and vote in the next election.
That's the reason the activists made the video. The reason the Right is "hot and bothered" is because butchering fetuses for sale is pre darned appalling in its own right.
quote:
And they don't care how many people they hurt along the way to do it.
Which is a libel and a lie. Of course, they'd view the millions of fetuses as people, which means from their point of view you'd be the one who doesn't care how many people get hurt along the way.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
And we have activists undercover pretending to be interested in buying human organs, and PP staff saying the most absurd things...
I should point out that we have no idea how many interviews there were in which PP staff said nothing absurd at all. Just like when the Late Show does those "man on the street" interviews, you don't get to see the clips where sensible people say sensible stuff.

quote:
I for one am pro-choice and opposed to selling fetal tissue.
Why? That is, of all four possible positions on the appropriate axes, the least sensible. You believe it's okay to kill fetuses, but you would rather throw away the resulting parts than use them?

quote:
Heck, just as I said on the first day, it looks like PP's web site wasn't down as a result of hackers but by choice, so they could claim victim status.
Again, I think it's very unsporting to assert this as fact. I think it's far more likely that their webservices were indeed hacked but they retained control of their cosmetic pages.

quote:
This seems to be a common tactic, the pre-emptive victim claim.
Who else has engaged in it? How common is it?

quote:
There's no way to know if laws are being broken, but there is certainly enough to believe they could be...
Heh. In related news, you'll be arrested shortly for something. I'm sure there's no real way to know what you've done. [Wink]

quote:
The reason the Right is "hot and bothered" is because butchering fetuses for sale...
And, see, this is the rhetorical trick that's at the heart of the "controversy," and why it's so stinking dishonest: Planned Parenthood is in no scenario "butchering fetuses for sale." From the absolute worst perspective, they are selling fetuses they butchered. But they are not butchering them for sale; they are butchering them because their mothers want them dead, and it is legal to kill them. They are selling them -- for a given definition of "selling" -- because those parts are valuable to people once they are produced.

Even from the worst possible perspective on this, there is no way that the pathetic amount of money changing hands here is the reason Planned Parenthood performs abortions.

Do you get the distinction? Do you understand why it's important? I suspect you do.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Like I said though, there's no reason they have to incur costs in the first place.
And it's still a completely logical impossibility, so long as they're preforming procedures and necessary processing before shipment in their facilities and using their staff. Unless you remove both of those factors, PP must incur a cost in the process of providing the material for donation.

quote:
And we have activists undercover pretending to be interested in buying human organs, and PP staff saying the most absurd things and making statements that appear to be designed to structure payments of profit to appear otherwise.
No we don't, not even remotely. A little gallows humor and medical talk that is bound to be a bit creepy to many people not familiar with it aside, we have PP giving a rough estimate of processing costs, and noting that even that guess is a bit high, then resisting the efforts of the buyer to bid them up, ending with a joke that ironically highlights the fact that they're not in it to make money.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"I for one am pro-choice and opposed to selling fetal tissue.
Why? That is, of all four possible positions on the appropriate axes, the least sensible"
What part of her body her choice dont you understand?

Do you think that supporters of the death penalty should logically support cannibalism?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
What part of her body her choice dont you understand?
The mother's consent is obtained, so that's a bit of a non sequitur.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
On a macro scale, are people really contending that Planned Parenthood, as an entity that is very much dependent on public money and goodwill, and that is very sensitive to the political realities of its most contentious services, would have a policy to break the law, in the very subset of its services that is most contentious, and for an amount of profit that could be measured in pennies per procedure, ar at worst a couple of dollars?

There seems to be a trend of willful stupidity among partisans that allows them to believe things that require their opponents to be both evil as well as incompetent; in this case, that Planned Parenthood either didn't vet this supposed process with its team of lawyers and PR companies, or that their lawyers and PR hacks were too stupid to breathe.

The other option being that said partisans are just pretending to be that wilfully stupid.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
Another video has dropped. It's very clear now that PP is performing illegal partial birth abortions in order to sell whole, intact babies (insert whatever euphemism for baby you like there).
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
What makes them illegal?
Does this video confirm it as policy? "PP is preforming" Or does it confirm "an employee of PP has preformed"?
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I should point out that we have no idea how many interviews there were in which PP staff said nothing absurd at all. Just like when the Late Show does those "man on the street" interviews, you don't get to see the clips where sensible people say sensible stuff.

That is an important point, there is no doubt the people shooting the videos are activists and they will only show what helps them. It's also a point that I have made repeatedly, and you've seemed to find illogical when I point out the media tendency to search through the millions of statements by minor Republican politicians till they find a crazy outlier then broadcast it like it's a central tenant or plank of the Republican party. Funny how quick you see it when the shoe is on the other foot.
quote:
quote:
I for one am pro-choice and opposed to selling fetal tissue.
Why? That is, of all four possible positions on the appropriate axes, the least sensible. You believe it's okay to kill fetuses, but you would rather throw away the resulting parts than use them?
I said I was pro choice, I didn't say it was okay to kill fetuses. As I see it there are two conflicting rights, the right of the fetus to live, which exists from the moment of conception and the right of the mother to control her own body, which also exists at every moment of the fetus's existence. There is an inevitable conflict prior to the point the fetus is viable, and it's my opinion that the conflict must be decided in the mother's favor.

However, a corollary to my view is that if it ever becomes possible to remove a fetus safely and raise it artificially, the power to have an abortion goes away permanently. The state would take the child and force both parents to pay child support (much like the mother can force the unwilling father today).

However, none of that makes it okay to disrespect the fetus or the mother, or to traffic in their organs. Donative use, okay, selling, not okay. We can't get the fetuses informed consent (which we should have) so we're stuck with the proxy of a mother who is deliberately acting against the fetus's interests (not ideal) for the consent.
quote:
quote:
Heck, just as I said on the first day, it looks like PP's web site wasn't down as a result of hackers but by choice, so they could claim victim status.
Again, I think it's very unsporting to assert this as fact.
Did I assert it as fact? Or are you overstating your case?
quote:
I think it's far more likely that their webservices were indeed hacked but they retained control of their cosmetic pages.
And I think it's FAR more likely, the hack didn't require they take down any of their web pages at all. Could be wrong, but I really doubt the veracity of a group who can post a diatribe about why they can't give you basic information, when they could just have given you the information in the same space.
quote:
quote:
This seems to be a common tactic, the pre-emptive victim claim.
Who else has engaged in it? How common is it?
The left has used it, including, on this site in every recent argument. It's pretty much an automatic phrase out of the mouth of Hilary Clinton (vast right wing conspiracy), or defenders of Obama's policies (Congress out to get him, most obstinate Congress of all time - notwithstanding he skips even trying for legislation). But you also see it in debates on here on racism, healthcare and pretty much every policy issue.

Were you really asking though, or is it just an attempt to switch fields so you can pretend to refute by claiming minutia in your favor?
quote:
quote:
There's no way to know if laws are being broken, but there is certainly enough to believe they could be...
Heh. In related news, you'll be arrested shortly for something. I'm sure there's no real way to know what you've done. [Wink]
So what you took out of the fact that we have probable cause to investigate, but would need to actually investigate to verify is that there's a vague unsubstantiated charge floating around? You're leaving good faith behind in your arguments here.
quote:
quote:
The reason the Right is "hot and bothered" is because butchering fetuses for sale...
And, see, this is the rhetorical trick that's at the heart of the "controversy," and why it's so stinking dishonest: Planned Parenthood is in no scenario "butchering fetuses for sale."
What rhetoric? They most certainly are butchering fetuses. That's pretty much the precise terminology for cutting up an organism into its constituent organs. The outrage from many comes just from that.

There's also however an allegation that they are selling the organs. Which they've supported with their own illadvised statements on the subject. Am I'm not willing to give them a lot of credit on that front, when you walking on the border of illegality you should be more careful with your words.
quote:
From the absolute worst perspective, they are selling fetuses they butchered. But they are not butchering them for sale; they are butchering them because their mothers want them dead, and it is legal to kill them.
That wasn't a reference to what happened in the mother's body, it was a reference to what happens to fetus outside the body.
quote:
They are selling them -- for a given definition of "selling" -- because those parts are valuable to people once they are produced.
Why are you complaining, this statement right here is prima facie evidence of a violation of law. If this is what you believe happened it's an open and shut case.

The only argument they have is that they are NOT selling them for value. The tissues are being donated, and it's only the costs they are incurring that are being reimbursed. Period.
quote:
Even from the worst possible perspective on this, there is no way that the pathetic amount of money changing hands here is the reason Planned Parenthood performs abortions.
Agreed. Not sure why you think that's relevant. My first post, go back an look, acknowledged that the fetus is essentially a waste product of the abortion, produced in all cases. That's why you can't allocate it any of the overhead as you would with a product you are trying to create.
quote:
Do you get the distinction? Do you understand why it's important? I suspect you do.
Apparently, more clearly than you, since you seem to believe it's okay to violate the law, well just because.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Like I said though, there's no reason they have to incur costs in the first place.
And it's still a completely logical impossibility, so long as they're preforming procedures and necessary processing before shipment in their facilities and using their staff. Unless you remove both of those factors, PP must incur a cost in the process of providing the material for donation.
Quit pretending to use logic, you apparently declined to offer the logical proof before, are you going to do it now?

PP produces the fetus as a result of the abortion at zero cost (the abortion costs money, but that's not properly attributable to the fetus). They could hand the fetus right over to a third party without any additional cost, ergo any additional costs they are incurring (whether for preservation or processing to the convenience of the donee) are elective costs. You have yet to offer even a reasonable argument (let alone a logical proof) as to why this isn't the truth.
quote:
quote:
And we have activists undercover pretending to be interested in buying human organs, and PP staff saying the most absurd things and making statements that appear to be designed to structure payments of profit to appear otherwise.
No we don't, not even remotely.
Could you repeat that falsehood again please. That's exactly what we have, irregardless of the spin you want to add.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
They could hand the fetus right over to a third party without any additional cost.
See, this is the flawed assumption that makes your post laughable. Who is this third party? Are they just hanging out at all the Planned Parenthood clinics in the country, waiting for baby parts? If this is the case, wouldn't they basically just be a third-party shipper, identical to the shipping agencies that Planned Parenthood already uses, is charged by, and recoups costs from? The only difference is that presumably this third party is actually preparing the tissues for preservation and shipping, which is usually something done by a medical professional. So we're looking at a medical professional with a truck, here, just hanging out at clinics waiting for something.

OR they can have medical professionals extract and prepare the parts, then hand them over to a shipper, then bill the receiver for the professional's time and the shipper's charges. Which is what they do, which is incalculably more efficient than your baffling proposition.

--------

quote:
the media tendency to search through the millions of statements by minor Republican politicians till they find a crazy outlier
Please do me a favor and find some sensible statements from Republican politicians. You could start a whole blog on it, if you'd like. It would probably only have to be a couple lines long, but you might have fun combing through millions of statements to find a few useful ones.

quote:
However, a corollary to my view is that if it ever becomes possible to remove a fetus safely and raise it artificially, the power to have an abortion goes away permanently.
Interestingly, this is precisely my own position (although I would still allow actual extermination in the first trimester, as we aren't even talking much of a fetus at that point.) But I don't think it's disrespectful of a fetus that has already largely been mangled to use the parts left over from that procedure to do some good. It's better than flushing them down a toilet or throwing them in a medical waste bin. It's not like they're going to get given to the mother for a burial.

quote:
The left has used it, including, on this site in every recent argument
When, again? Specifically.

quote:
So what you took out of the fact that we have probable cause to investigate...
See, it is not a fact that we -- or anyone -- have "probable cause" -- to investigate. We have doctored videos that, even in their doctored state, don't actually show people confessing to anything criminal. In fact, the actions they discuss are expressly permitted by law.

quote:
What rhetoric? They most certainly are butchering fetuses...
Okay, so I don't know whether you're playing stupid or just didn't keep reading the rest of the sentence. Yes, they are butchering fetuses. The phrase "butchering fetuses for sale," however, implies that they are butchering fetuses in order to sell the parts. But that is not why Planned Parenthood butchers fetuses; Planned Parenthood butchers fetuses to kill the fetuses and remove them from their mothers, because their mothers want them dead and removed. This results in leftover parts. These leftover parts have value, and PP acts to preserve and maximize the value of those parts because, well, to do otherwise would be incredibly wasteful (and arguably disrespectful).

And this is the rhetorical trick: the implication that Planned Parenthood is somehow encouraging abortions so that they can profit from the sale of baby parts. Which would be laughable if it weren't actually part of the Republican stable of lies at the moment.

quote:
If this is what you believe happened it's an open and shut case.
This is not true. Like I said, the law defines "selling" in this case to imply meaningful profit from the sale. If agencies are "selling" the tissues at anything near the cost of procurement and shipping, which every single wasted and worthless Republican-instigated investigation so far has confirmed that they are, they are not violating the law. There is no question that money is changing hands -- but money is changing hands both ethically and legally.

[ August 05, 2015, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"I for one am pro-choice and opposed to selling fetal tissue.
Why? That is, of all four possible positions on the appropriate axes, the least sensible"
What part of her body her choice dont you understand?

Do you think that supporters of the death penalty should logically support cannibalism?

Tom has already responded to the choice issue but I wanted to respond to yet one more bizarre analogy. A good analogy would have been that supporters of the death penalty should logically support the donation of their bodies to science or organ donation. See cannibalism is bad regardless of how the bodies are obtained. Unless you contend that donating organs or tissue to science is in itself a bad thing, your analogy doesn't work.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Kate, I should warn you: if you criticize Pete's analogies, he will never leave you alone.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"I for one am pro-choice and opposed to selling fetal tissue.
Why? That is, of all four possible positions on the appropriate axes, the least sensible"
What part of her body her choice dont you understand?

Do you think that supporters of the death penalty should logically support cannibalism?

Tom has already responded to the choice issue but I wanted to respond to yet one more bizarre analogy. A good analogy would have been that supporters of the death penalty should logically support the donation of their bodies to science or organ donation. See cannibalism is bad regardless of how the bodies are obtained. Unless you contend that donating organs or tissue to science is in itself a bad thing, your analogy doesn't work.
Again I ask you Kate, Are you being intentionally obtuse". "cannibalizing" is a well established shorthand for reusing parts.

" See cannibalism is bad regardless of how the bodies are obtained"

Rubbish. Lots of people bite their fingernails and i've never heard moral condemnation of those that swallow. but set canibalism aside and answer your own bloody question if you think it's a better analogy. If we create a corporate profit or an independent perceived public GOOD from executions, then we create a motive to execute which could overwhelm due process. for this reason death penalty advocates in the US and UK are overwhelmingly AGAINST selling body parts of executed convicts.

Also, I am dismayed that you blow off "the choice issue" so trivially. Choice is the only morally viable argument for abortion rights. Dehumanization of the fetus (the SCOTUS argument) is a moral nadir
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I think the only way that happens Pete is if the mother profits. If PP was able to profit from abortions I would agree that we would have to be extremely careful to monitor them being in a position to sway a pregnent woman who was on the fence in order to line their own pockets.

I honestly don't know what role PP playes (if any) in counciling women on the decision to have or not have an abortion.

I don't think that is a real concern at this point. Do you?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Did you mean cannibalizing as a shorthand for reusing parts?

Do you actually consider biting fingernails to be cannibalism?

I am against the death penalty but I think that people should be allowed to donate their bodies to science or make organ donations as long as no one makes a profit from it. That, because it is a good analogy, works for the PP situation.

I don't consider the choice issue as trivial. I considered it already well addressed so didn't feel the need to rehash it.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:

PP produces the fetus as a result of the abortion at zero cost (the abortion costs money, but that's not properly attributable to the fetus). They could hand the fetus right over to a third party without any additional cost, ergo any additional costs they are incurring (whether for preservation or processing to the convenience of the donee) are elective costs.

Handing it over costs money. The paperwork and transfer process itself represents time and money. And that's not counting holding it till the handoff can happen, which requires on the spot processing and storage. The tissue has to be processed for transport before it can be transported, and since you can't un-process it, that processing has to match what's needed at the far end. And unless you're seriously suggesting that research labs have the funding to pay for a permanent delivery agent to be posted at each location, or even to show up and cross their fingers hoping that this particular procedure happens to produce the needed material, it's going to need to be stored until a delivery service can come pick it up, an on-demand service that is most easily paid for by the site that the material is coming from, then reimbursed after the fact as the law explicitly suggests is a reasonable arrangement.

You're pretty much suggesting that PP and the research labs in question should incur extra costs above and beyond what the law clearly allows them to do in order to facilitate the process to meet your arbitrary and absurd extra requirements to complicate the process.

quote:
That's exactly what we have, irregardless of the spin you want to add.
Please point to where we have that evidence, because it's not anywhere in the material posted. The only person that tries to haggle in the video is the actor, and the actor tries to bid the price up, even as PP rebuffs him, then makes an ironic joke about how there's no actual profit in reaction to the actor's prodding to try to raise the quote.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
They could hand the fetus right over to a third party without any additional cost.
See, this is the flawed assumption that makes your post laughable. Who is this third party?
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
quote:
They could easily require that those wishing to collect the tissues be responsible for the collection, storage and direct costs ...
quote:
PP could inform those interested in the tissue when it would be available, and let the interested parties arrange for collection and storage.
quote:
They could give the tissue to the donee's agent straight from the procedure and be done with it.
quote:
The medical researchers are highly advanced and bright people, and generally if they are involved in research they are well funded. This is a trivial problem for them to resolve, not a master work of difficulty. More than likely they'd sign an overall delivery agreement with a middle man, a medical transport company that would arrange the pick-ups.
quote:
Maybe you should look at existing medical transport companies before you label an idea "patently ridiculous."

Looks like I've answered your question multiple times. Not clear to me how you're still asking it in good faith. Seriously.
quote:
Are they just hanging out at all the Planned Parenthood clinics in the country, waiting for baby parts?
Don't know if they tend to make the contracts with individual clinics (which is a local issue and would erase your concerns about transport and storage), or if they do it nationally. 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.
quote:
If this is the case, wouldn't they basically just be a third-party shipper, identical to the shipping agencies that Planned Parenthood already uses, is charged by, and recoups costs from?
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.
quote:
The only difference is that presumably this third party is actually preparing the tissues for preservation and shipping, which is usually something done by a medical professional. So we're looking at a medical professional with a truck, here, just hanging out at clinics waiting for something.
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.
quote:
OR they can have medical professionals extract and prepare the parts, then hand them over to a shipper, then bill the receiver for the professional's time and the shipper's charges. Which is what they do, which is incalculably more efficient than your baffling proposition.
Lol, it's pretty much the same, there's just a distinction in whether PP hires the person or not. Like I said, it's a CHOICE that PP is making, so no reason not to hold them strictly liable for compliance.
quote:
Please do me a favor and find some sensible statements from Republican politicians. You could start a whole blog on it, if you'd like.
What bad faith. If you want to assert that no Republican ever says anything sensible, please do so directly rather than through implication. Of course that would be refutable almost instantly.
quote:
quote:
However, a corollary to my view is that if it ever becomes possible to remove a fetus safely and raise it artificially, the power to have an abortion goes away permanently.
Interestingly, this is precisely my own position (although I would still allow actual extermination in the first trimester, as we aren't even talking much of a fetus at that point.)
Then it's not the same position, since there is no right to kill a fetus for convenience only to resolve the otherwise irresolvable conflict with the mother's right to control her body.
quote:
But I don't think it's disrespectful of a fetus that has already largely been mangled to use the parts left over from that procedure to do some good.
I never said that it was. Selling them on the other hand.
quote:
quote:
The left has used it, including, on this site in every recent argument
When, again? Specifically.
You mean other than the six examples I already gave. For someone who refuses to provide research you're awfully demanding of others.
quote:
quote:
So what you took out of the fact that we have probable cause to investigate...
See, it is not a fact that we -- or anyone -- have "probable cause" -- to investigate.
Actually it is a fact. You're confusing fact with opinion again. It's not a fact that a crime was committed, it's a fact that we have probable cause to investigate whether a crime was committed based on the video evidence. That doesn't mean there will be an investigation, there's tons of discretion involved on the parts of both the police and the prosecutors.
quote:
quote:
What rhetoric? They most certainly are butchering fetuses...
Okay, so I don't know whether you're playing stupid or just didn't keep reading the rest of the sentence. Yes, they are butchering fetuses. The phrase "butchering fetuses for sale," however, implies that they are butchering fetuses in order to sell the parts.
I responded to both parts, did you rush past the whole response in an effort to draw a meaning that wasn't there? They are butchering the fetuses whether or not they are doing it for sale.
quote:
But that is not why Planned Parenthood butchers fetuses; Planned Parenthood butchers fetuses to kill the fetuses and remove them from their mothers, because their mothers want them dead and removed.
Umm... no. I'm not referring to the abortion process as butchering, though I'm sure there are activists that do so. I'm referring to the butchering process that occurs on the remains, you know where after the procedure they butcher the fetal remains, as butchering. Which is exactly what it is. The sole purpose of which is to separate out specific tissues for [sale/donation].
quote:
This results in leftover parts.
Are you under the misimpression that the only cuts occur in the womb?
quote:
These leftover parts have value, and PP acts to preserve and maximize the value of those parts because, well, to do otherwise would be incredibly wasteful (and arguably disrespectful).
Value is such the wrong word. From the point of view of the law the value is zero, these materials are permitted to be donated but not exchanged for value (ie sold).
quote:
And this is the rhetorical trick: the implication that Planned Parenthood is somehow encouraging abortions so that they can profit from the sale of baby parts.
There is no rhetorical trick, nor any implication that they are encouraging abortions for sale of parts. Nor is there anything I said that could be reasonably construed as implying it. You're reading things in that I'm not saying.
quote:
Which would be laughable if it weren't actually part of the Republican stable of lies at the moment.
Which is neither here nor there, nor actually proven or provable, but it sure does play to the nasty liberal view of Republicans. As an argument I give it a zero rating.
quote:
quote:
If this is what you believe happened it's an open and shut case.
This is not true. Like I said, the law defines "selling" in this case to imply meaningful profit from the sale. If agencies are "selling" the tissues at anything near the cost of procurement and shipping, which every single wasted and worthless Republican-instigated investigation so far has confirmed that they are, they are not violating the law. There is no question that money is changing hands -- but money is changing hands both ethically and legally.
All of which is interpretation of facts, not application of law. You seem to mix arguments about what you think the law is and what you think it should be willy nilly.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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, which is why organizations choose to use it regardless of which body tissue is being donated.

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.

quote:
t. 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.
Indeed, they have been solved- the medical facility that extracts the organs handles processing, storage, and shipment arrangements. With the benefit of knowing ahead of time that they're going to be able to get certain organs from a given procedure, or that the need for transport will be regular enough that they can have it on call to immediately take possession, after it's been appropriately processed and made ready for transit. And then the recipient is billed for those assorted costs. 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, 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.

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, in fact all evidence presented shows that they are fully in compliance, there's no probable cause for an investigation, only political machination. Especially in a state like Louisiana where no PP clinics perform abortions, never mind attempt to donate the tissue and why the only thing that the investigations conducted so far have resulted in is wasted money on the parts of the states conducing them and their PP affiliates in carrying out the useless investigations.

quote:
Value is such the wrong word. From the point of view of the law the value is zero, these materials are permitted to be donated but not exchanged for value (ie sold).
That's absurd. They clearly have value, and the law that permits donation is an explicit acknowledgement of that value.

What they do not have is a _price_. They Cannot be exchanged for _money_, neither of which has has any direct reference to _vaule_ which is a subjective measurement.

The are explicitly allowed to charge for costs accrued in the process.

Value is exactly the right word, which is why the law exists in the first place. If there was not value, there would be no danger of anyone setting a price for those looking to acquire the thing that they assign a value to. It ensures that the only value that PP can place on them stems from their (and more specifically their patients') desire to contribute to research, and not from any ability to generate net income.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
people see any attack, even the most justified, as some conspiracy based attack on all women
Is that not exactly what this is?
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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)
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
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.
And I'd say the same about the sloppy way you posed the question, where it implied you cared about whether the banks were effectively regulated and not whether the audits were effective at generating compliance.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
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.
Aside from the fact that you are glossing over the real costs, I hope you are not comparing the $1.50 to the total of between $30 and $100 (we saw what you did there [Smile] ) which includes shipping costs.

For instance, you are neglecting that shippers are not just waiting at the edge of the surgery for the tissues to be handed over, which introduces the necessity of on-site refrigeration, and even your $1.50 seems to gloss over the necessity of keeping packing ice available: where does that come from? All of a sudden, you are talking about having otherwise unnecessary ice-making and refrigeration units or space available; not to mention that you are also assuming that a minimum wage worker is also standing at the ready, who either get's paid his $1.50 only by the procedure, or who is expected to be available for such activities without interrupting his other duties (if such employees actually are employed in such clinics: an assumption which is questionable at best.)

Also, where and how would these shipping containers be stored, and who is responsible for receiving them, organizing them, and making them available to any particular procedure?

All that to say - I expect your $1.50 per procedure, even excluding shipping, is a significant underestimate.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Did I mention paperwork? We are talking about procedures that require signed consent forms, which not only require time for filling them out, but also need to be filed and eventually, those particular processes and documents will be subjected to additional audit requirements.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Would the situation or outrage be any different for anyone if the aleged 'profit' was only 10%? What if it was 100x?

Would any of you change your support or condemnation of P.P. in either of those cases? Why are you debating dolar amounts?

Beyond the possibility of eroding the credibility of one side's other facts I suppose.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
I think if there were any profit, even 1%, that was consciously baked into the costs, that would be a problem.

But that is not currently what is being debated, methinks: rather, it is whether anything that PP has admitted to doing (even via the edited video) rises to the level of being beyond what might be considered a reasonable cost.

By that measure, I think a 10% discrepancy from what one person might consider 'reasonable' wouldn't rise to the level of being suspicious. 100 times a reasonable estimate would be strongly suspicious.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
.

quote:
They could easily require that those wishing to collect the tissues be responsible for the collection, storage and direct costs without the charge if they choose to do so.
How would they do that? As those charges are variable, and those receiving the tissues are not actually doing the shipping or cutting or collection themselves, how would they do that without stating a price? If you wanted to buy a brain from Planned Parenthood, how would you know how much it would cost you if they didn't tell you?

quote:
as an accounting matter allocating any overhead or other costs is a bookkeeping trick
Not true. The additional overhead comes from the shipping and storage costs. It is not particularly easy to ship a liver intact.

So much for the shipping cost argument. This is from a interview with a former Planned Parenthood Employee of the Year:

quote:

How much did shipping typically cost?

The researchers provided the Styrofoam box and dry ice to Planned Parenthood. Literally the only cost we had was shipping the box. And that was about $20 every time we shipped. So Planned Parenthood is getting $200 per specimen, and we’re taking all the specimens, putting them in one box and shipping it off for $20. The different fetal body parts are not shipped individually.

Sounds like they were turning quite the profit.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
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.
Aside from the fact that you are glossing over the real costs, I hope you are not comparing the $1.50 to the total of between $30 and $100 (we saw what you did there [Smile] ) which includes shipping costs.
Interesting response to an "IF" scenario.

I didn't "gloss" over real costs. The fact is the actual costs are nothing but speculation on all parts, without an investigation you have only self-serving statements by the party that is potentially guilty. And I don't say that out of animus, that's literally what they are. They may be true, they may be exact or they may not.

My own experience with accounting and finance lets me know - for a fact - that there are a lot of "costs" that can be added to a process (see the aforementioned overhead expenses) that will make it look like something isn't done for profit, but it's the marginal gross margin that ought to be looked at here.
quote:
All that to say - I expect your $1.50 per procedure, even excluding shipping, is a significant underestimate.
And? You're speculating, I'm speculating, big whoop. I'm not the one who wants to avoid getting real information on the subject.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
It should be noted that the "Employee of the Year" in question was the "employee of the year" at a specific clinic, and quit when she realized that she didn't approve of late-term abortion. She has since gone on to a very lucrative career as an anti-abortion lobbyist, and has made a number of statements about Planned Parenthood's finances that have at best been impossible to verify and in many cases have proven outright false.

I should observe that she claims to have gone to work at Planned Parenthood out of college without knowing that they performed abortions at all, somehow.

[ August 12, 2015, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
Seriati,

quote:
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.
Except that that is of course absurd.

1) You can't have someone without the proper training handle biohazardous material. So for someone with biohazard training we are already looking at 20$ an hour.

2) Proper cooling is one hell of a lot more complicated - while dry ice and styrofoam is aequate for shipping once the tissue has been properly cooled - the cooling of the material is far more complicated (if you don't properly cool tissue - you get ice crystal formation which ruins the tissue making it unsuitable for research). That would be the 'handling' part. Generally this will be dedicated equipment that requires specialized training - so again not a 'minimum wage worker'

3) there is not a high volume of these procudures where the tissue is harvested for research - if you want a dedicated individual for this stuff they might take an hour or two per week and it wouldn't be 'on demand'. So 20/hr * 8 * 5 = 800$ for the two hours. An equivalent of 400$/hr. Of course they probably don't dedicate someone to this task - so their labor is amortized, but the full training burden related to tissue handling and preservation will be on those 2 hours. Typical course will probably run 4,200$ (travel + hotel, course cost, etc. see calculation below) + annual certification. 4,200$/(2*52) = 40$/hr that can reasonably be charged to cover training if it cost the company that much to have an individual trained.

It looks like cryopreservation specialists run 46-51k a year. 3 times minimum wage.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/St-Jude-Children-s-Research-Hospital-Cryopreservation-Specialist-Salaries-E28315_D_KO37,64.htm

Training is a 5 day course, costing 1200 Euro (couldn't find US prices, assume they are similar)

https://www.infrafrontier.eu/sites/infrafrontier.eu/files/upload/public/pdf/Resources%20and%20Services/Course15.pdf

5 days * wages for 5 days + travel costs + vehicle rental + lodging + food + course cost.

wages (+ burden 25%) 18*8*5 = 720$ * 1.25 = 900$
flight 1000$
vehicle rental 300$
lodging 50 * 5 = 250$
food 40 * 5 = 200$
course cost 1500$

4200$

Then you have the cryopreservation equipment costs, again which have to be completely captured by the costs of these few procedures.

So your 1.50$ estimate is a ridiculous low ball.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
LetterRip, thanks for the highly detailed - COMPLETLY MADE UP STATISTICS. And again, all I posed was an IF not an assertion those were the actual costs.

This is exactly why, by the way, that I said it made no sense to go into a detailed procedural response for KMBboots, you guys can't help but fixate on things that ARE NOT material to the logical argument being made. It's not a matter of opinion here, it's a question of fact, only one party has them and you either take their word or you consider an investigation. This law is utterly meaningless if it can ONLY BE VIOLATED WITH A CERTIFIED SELF ADMISSION. There's more than enough detail to investigate.

If you don't like the law, move to have it repealed, and let people do this for profit. But as written, compliance is mandated, not an option.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Of course these things are material, because the only thing 'suspicious' here is that the costs look to be more than what is thought of as reasonable. There is really nothing else for those questioning PP's actions here to grab onto, since providing the fetal tissue at cost is specifically not illegal.
quote:
It's not a matter of opinion here, it's a question of fact, only one party has them and you either take their word or you consider an investigation.
Well, no - what you have is an edited video that sounds bad if you focus on specific sentences, but in fact does not suggest anything actually illegal is occurring. So you have one party external to PP claiming facts not actually in evidence as evidence that an investigation should occur, and your argument in support of that position is that basically, you have no facts. [Smile]

[ August 12, 2015, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: DonaldD ]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
DonaldD, who bears the duty to prove compliance or noncompliance? And how exactly, would a government agency do so without investigating?
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Are you questioning whether PP should regularly have their processes audited, or that a special investigation should be undertaken as a result of these edited videos?
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
I've already answered that, I have no problem with this being an area subject to routine compliance inspections. But specifically, it should be an investigation (not clear why it would be a "special" investigation) based on the questions raised by what has come to light.

Now can you answer my questions?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
What do you think has come to light and to whom?
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
I expect that PP should bear exactly the same responsibilities as any other medical care provider of similar services do (and in this case, as any other provider of human tissues).

So whatever is considered adequate for hospitals or local clinics should also be adequate for PP.

Is it your contention that you are familiar with the regulatory framework controlling the delivery of human tissue, and that PP is not following the same regulations as are hospitals and other clinics, Seriati?
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
Lol, that's not an actually an answer to what I asked. And I think I've been more than fair about responding to the challenges you guys have posed.

I'll make it simpler:

Who bears the duty to prove compliance or noncompliance? Indicate one or two:

1. PP has to prove compliance. [This is not the case in criminal standards generally, but it is the case in many compliance and regulatory situations.]

2. Legal authorities have to prove noncompliance.

If you chose two, how exactly does a government agency prove non-compliance without investigating?
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
You didn't actually answer Kate's question...

To answer your question, if it wasn't clear - I do not know. That is why I asked the questions that I asked.

I assume there is a standard, and that it is consistent for all parties involved in the handling of human tissues. Are you confident that this is not the case, that PP is not already following the accepted standards, or that PP is not regularly submitting to audits?

But my guess is that in no case is a special investigation normally called based on a politically motivated, poorly edited internet video.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
quote:
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.
The magic by which you expect the tissue to be moved from the PP facility to the processing facility without the processing necessary to be able to store and ship it that has to be done at the site where it was extracted by trained professionals. If, as you assert, there's no need for PP to processit it for storage and transport to get it to the place where any additional processing will be done, then only magic is left to get it there.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
LetterRip, thanks for the highly detailed - COMPLETLY MADE UP STATISTICS. And again, all I posed was an IF not an assertion those were the actual costs.

So, in other words, you're the one making things up here, while LR is presenting facts about real procedures and rough cost estimates.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
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?
It's possible, but why go looking for someone when they already have one in front of them? Especially if it's going to mean that specialist needed to elbow in on PP's facilities to do processing that they may need of have done on the fresh specimen before it's properly cooled for storage and transport?

You seem to think that it's PP _chosing_ to this, where it's very clearly the recipients specifying to PP what processing they require ahead of time to consider it a usable specimen. The cost is entirely recipient driven, based on the costs of meeting their requirements, not PP driven.

quote:
Umm.. you must be watching different videos. They certainly suggest manipulation of the law, not strict compliance
Please cite instead of making things up.

quote:
They are negotiating the charges in advance, not billing through the actual shipping costs.
PRoviding an estimate, that includes such costs so the recipient has an idea of what to expect to pay can be the _start_ of negotiations, but is not when the person providing the estimate reuses to negotiate- specifically refuses the bizarre attempt of the person receiving the estimate to negotiate _up_ as happens in the video. There was _no_ negotiation in the video, despite the best attempts of the actors to try to push the price up against their own interests.

quote:
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' could actually cite facts instead of making things up and then trying to pretend that those are "facts". You're the one that's making an assertion of evidence of wrongdoing, but thus far you've assert accusations with no citations to prove them, and the best guess citations of what you're talking about, but rather indicate the opposite.

quote:
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?
A reasonable investigation requires a reason it conduct the investigation. If you do not believe there is something untoward happening, then launching a specific investigation is unreasonable.

Please to cite anything in the video that warrants an investigation.

Again, let's start with Louisiana before moving to any other. It's facilities provide no abortion services. Why does this video suggest that they should be investigated?

quote:
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.
Which is what the standard inspection process should be taking care of. Are you suggesting that these states have been delinquent in their normal enforcement, inspection, and audit processes such that an special, expensive investigation is needed to compensate for that prior lapse? What evidence do you have of that?

quote:
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.
Evidence, please. In this case we have a good example of a facility that fell through the cracks and was not subject to standard inspections and audits. IF you have evidence taht the same thing is happening with PP facilities, then please do show it. And even then, perhaps the first step should be to properly fund the routine inspection process and the regular regulatory framework rather than leaping to high profile, politicized investigations (that, after their exceptional costs are imposed, find that there is nothing improper going on, just as the initial evidence suggested)

quote:
I'm really not sure why you guys are arguing against inspection.
Ooh. Goalpost shift. Nice try. People are against _investigatoins_ where no evidence exists to prompt them, inclusing eidence that would pe brofided by already conduscted routine inspections. Unless, again, you have evidence that the standard inspection process isn't being upheld? And then, perhaps, it's the local health departments that need the investigation to ascertain why they're failing to do so.

[ August 14, 2015, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Remember we were discussing whether $100 of "shipping and handling" is appropriate
No- we're discussing with here $100 is an appropriate estimate that covers the processing costs (staff time, lab time, storage, and materials) and expected shipping and handling costs that the transport company will charge. The low end, $30, may well be just an estimate of shipping costs where little processing or storage is needed, but the evidence is that this is significantly lower than cost recovery at other facilities that provide similar services, so suggests that the estimate does not include any marginal profit.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It should be noted that the "Employee of the Year" in question was the "employee of the year" at a specific clinic, and quit when she realized that she didn't approve of late-term abortion. She has since gone on to a very lucrative career as an anti-abortion lobbyist, and has made a number of statements about Planned Parenthood's finances that have at best been impossible to verify and in many cases have proven outright false.

I should observe that she claims to have gone to work at Planned Parenthood out of college without knowing that they performed abortions at all, somehow.

It should also be noted that what you said in no way contradicts her. Shooting the messenger does does not disprove her message.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
Going back through this, it's fascinating to watch the defense evolve from hoax and lies to they just negotiating shipping on behalf of other service providers to they don't do it often and besides they lose money on it so it's ok, to fabricated statistics and to the denial of simply shooting the messenger.

There are other videos queued up for release. Watching the defense of PP further evolve down the rabbit hole of absurdity will be pretty incredible.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Where has it evolved, exactly? It seems to me that everyone except the more stupid conservatives has been consistently on point throughout.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
States Try To Dig Up Planned Parenthood Violations, Fail Miserably
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
They don't need evidence. They just need expensive investigations to prove that PP costs more than it's worth to maintain so should be defunded. The effort has never been about actually finding wrongdoing, but about creating a theatre around the notion of searching for wrongdoing that will turn into a justification in and of itself for trying to eliminate the target of their persecution. PP gives people too much independence and allows them to behave outside of the punitive dictates of the conservative powers that be (hence casting abortion and birth control as "avoiding responsibility" or "allowing irresponsible behavoir" instead of "taking responsibility in ways that I happen to disagree with" and trying to use the force of law to impose consequences in line with their subjective moral position on people that don't hold the same values.)
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
It looks like it is working, too.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
They don't need evidence. They just need expensive investigations to prove that PP costs more than it's worth to maintain so should be defunded. The effort has never been about actually finding wrongdoing, but about creating a theatre around the notion of searching for wrongdoing that will turn into a justification in and of itself for trying to eliminate the target of their persecution. PP gives people too much independence and allows them to behave outside of the punitive dictates of the conservative powers that be (hence casting abortion and birth control as "avoiding responsibility" or "allowing irresponsible behavoir" instead of "taking responsibility in ways that I happen to disagree with" and trying to use the force of law to impose consequences in line with their subjective moral position on people that don't hold the same values.)

And you make their case for the far right when you speak of Abortion and Birth Control in the same breath, as if they were exactly equal in their moral operation.

Opposition to birth control certainly is largely about "trying to use the force of law to impose consequences in line with their subjective moral position on people that don't hold the same values."

Most opposition to abortion is nothing of the sort.

One does need to be pro-life or even anti-abortion to be cognizant and intellectually honest about the anti-abortion movement.

What's going on here, as I've said before, is that anti-birth control forces are hijacking anti-abortion movement, to cripple the historically greatest provider of inexpensive birth control in history.

If you care more about saving Planned Parenthood and a woman's right to her body more than you care about sanitizing abortion, you should deal with the distinction that the far right wing is putting under erasure, i.e., the moral difference between abortion and birth control
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
New video as judge rules them protected by the first amendment:
quote:
This latest video is only two minutes long and is more of a trailer of things to come. Most of its content was made up of bits and pieces of previous videos. The one new section featured Cate Dyer, the CEO of StemExpress in a lunch meeting with undercover operatives posing as representatives of a biotech firm. Dyer is seen laughing about how StemExpress purchases fully intact aborted babies from Planned Parenthood. As she paid the check, Dyer is laughing about how shippers of the aborted babies should give a warning to lab workers to expect such a whole (intact) baby.

“Oh yeah, if you have intact cases — which we’ve done a lot — we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety,” she says.

“Tell the lab its coming,” she laughs about the intact unborn babies. “They don’t want to open the box and go ‘Oh my God!'” Dyer adds.

I bet. Opening a box to find a dead baby must be a real shock. I don't see the humor in it, do you PP supporters find it as funny as Dyer?
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
That is one of the ways that humans deal with stress, it is present in every profession that deals with death and trauma - doctors, police, social workers, rape counselors, psychologists, etc.

quote:
Gallows humor is humor that treats serious, frightening, or painful subject matter in a light or satirical way. Joking
about death fits the term most literally, but making fun of life-threatening, disastrous, or terrifying situations fits the
category as well.

[...]

It made me think differently about a joke I heard a senior neonatologist tell years ago:
A group of medical professionals and ethicists were considering the case of a neurologically devastated newborn. The discussion focused on the medical facts for an extended period of time (but what about this test, what about that test, how can you predict A, B, and C …) until Bill ended the debate by saying, "Look. He's more likely to be second base than play second base."


https://meded.duke.edu/practice/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Gallows-humor-in-medicine.pdf

Also things that are incongruous are by definition funny. Just because we view the 'funniness' as inappropriate and can subvert the part of our brain that interprets it, doesn't mean that your brain didn't find it funny, your logical brain simply overrode it because you felt it was inappropriate humor.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
So you find it funny? Why is there a need for gallows humor?
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
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?

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.

Freezing tissues properly requires training, equipment, and time.
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.

People qualified to do these highly technical tasks generally get paid reasonably well, with benefits, vacation, etc.

Equipment to perform these tasks is fairly specialized and does not benefit from high volumes or competition to bring down costs.

Do you disagree with those statements?

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?

If you doubt those figures, please explain why you doubt them.

Please note that the burden is on you to provide justification for reasonable doubt. 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. (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)

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.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
What's your point, Rafi? Is it that Cate Dyer is an awful woman because she is insensitive? Is it that abortions are bad because Cate Dyer is bad?
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
Correction to last post: between $30 and $100.

Seriati wrote, regarding an estimate for the costs,
quote:
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.
OK, lets have an investigation. Lets ask "Four experts in the field of human tissue procurement ".

Oh, wait, someone already did that upthread. Those experts said:
quote:
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 it's a win-win. We have documented evidence from experts that the reimbursements are reasonable.

I think a reasonable person would agree that the issue is resolved. PP is charging a reasonable amount for supplying samples. There is no profit. There are no Lamborghinis being bought. The facts are as solid as they can possibly be.

I 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.

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.
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
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.

I've lost the context. to what case do you refer?
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
Sorry, the case of PP making a profit from providing fetal tissue research samples, aka "selling baby parts". Four experts explained that the charges for reimbursement were well within reason for the procedures.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Thanks.

Does within reason necessarily meean unprofitable?

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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
G#, I certainly hope you're enjoying the irony as you generate it. [Smile]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
"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.
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
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.”
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Pete, how's this conflict of interest any different from organ donation?
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
Fenring,

I went from "public face of conservatism" to "at least externally, the behavior of conservatives"

But to link with what Wayward said, lets just say CPAC et. al are "radical Conservatives"
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
Pete,

Is there any evidence that the procedures to preserve tissue are more dangerous to the patient? I'm not saying there's no evidence, just I am not aware of any.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
"radical Conservative"

Well, that's a painful oxymoron. *twitch* *twitch*
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
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?
I think the main question, Pete, is whether this "inherent conflict of interest" really matters.

Has anyone done a study that compares the rate of abortion complications for those who signed donation forms verses those who did not? Because if the rate is not significantly greater, then there would be no significant difference, and any conflict of interest would not matter.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
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?
WIthout evidence otherwise, what are you basing the assertion that they're not adequately counseling patients on an option that the patients need to request in the first place? Or the assertion that there is any significant difference in risk, rather than the difference simply being in our convenience to the doctor?

Do you even have some form of statistics regarding complications that you can point to here, or are you purely making up the assertion that there's a measurable difference in risk?

If I'm using a whole egg in a recipe, I'm at not greater risk of injury than if I need to separate an need and use just the yoke. I just have to take a little more time to do the separation, with the risk that I might break the yoke and have to wait for the next egg to get it right. At the same time, I'm not going to waste time and effort separating the egg if I don't need to. It's not a risk issue, just one of a proper investment of effort. The only way even the recipe I'm making comes under risk of being messed up is if I use a bad process instead of taking proper precautions ahead of time to negate all risks.

The assertion from PP is that there is no difference in risk between extracting a sample; it's not really even a different procedure. It's just a matter of whether the doctor needs to pay attention to what to cut when they're doing it, with the only risk being that they'll cut wrong and ruin the specimen.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
" what are you basing the assertion that they're not adequately counseling patients"

What assertion? I said there is a serious conflict of interest and that I hope that clients are getting enough quality explanation to create a situation of informed consent. But you are taking my expression of concern as a unequivocal attaqck. It seems like if i am not perfectly in synch with what you are saying you assume i am on the attack.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
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?
I think the main question, Pete, is whether this "inherent conflict of interest" really matters.

Has anyone done a study that compares the rate of abortion complications for those who signed donation forms verses those who did not? Because if the rate is not significantly greater, then there would be no significant difference, and any conflict of interest would not matter.

While such a study would not resolve all of my concerns, it would address what is arguably the most important issue, i.e. actual safety. Thanks,W.

Why "arguably"? Because if Pyr were con sistent with half of what he'd said about his extraordinarily broad definition of "rape," he would probably place a higher priority on informed consent in this case.

[ August 26, 2015, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
Pete,

Not to bug you, but...

Is there any evidence that the procedures to preserve tissue are more dangerous to the patient? I'm not saying there's no evidence, just I am not aware of any.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
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?

Because I don't actually share the outrage of the video producers, don't share their opinions and couldn't care less about their goals.

All I care about is the rule of law. No matter how shady a tipster the police should investigate a tip. It's fully reasonable for them to gauge the level of the investigation to the quality of the information - and they do so. By the way, it appears that several states have in fact conducted investigations and determined either that no law was violated, or that there wasn't any violation worth trying to prove. That is exactly the kind of result I was looking for.
quote:
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.
Well no, I would never call for a political investigation. That's the hallmark of a banana republic. The only reason we have to suffer through them on the federal level is because we lack an independent justice department (justice reports to the President regardless of party).

Any investigations should be conduct by the appropriate members of law enforcement and/or regulatory authorities. And honestly, I'd be surprised if PP, as a medical provider receiving federal aid, is not ALREADY both routinely inspected and required to submit to inspection. It's a certainly that any or all of these records would be subject to review by the IRS in connection with their status as an charitable entity.
quote:
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?
I called for investigations to determine the facts. There's been a lot of confusion in this thread about what's a fact and what's an opinion. Feel free to look back on my multiple responses about the facts.
quote:
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.
True, and I both said I think monitoring should occur, and posed that very question to anyone who disagreed with me. And no one seemed to feel inclined to answer.

As I pointed out before, if you believe in an investigatory regime (rather than a compliance regime) then tipster accounts would be a reasonable basis to begin investigating. You may never get to probable cause as an investigator, but you'd be negligent to just ignore it.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
Thanks to Fenring for more calming walking through that with Wayward Son than I could have.
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
So from here on I'll try to refer to them a "radical Conservatives"...

I'd actually be satisfied with "some" conservatives.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
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.

When you write expert "opinion" in your response, do you not see the irony of then demanding that I acknowledge this "fact"? As I asserted, you are confusing opinions that you find credible, with facts, which is why you're having trouble analyzing my response.
quote:
For reasonable people, that fact is enough to dispel doubt that PP is making a profit.
It's not evidence. And with actual evidence available in the books and records of PP there's no reason to rely on speculation, not even really really persuasive speculation that you really really agree with.
quote:
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."
Are you responding to me? I have reached no conclusion about whether PP is making a "profit". I wouldn't be surprised if their variable costs are less than the compensation received, which would result in gross margin in their favor. But as I repeatedly pointed out, even if that were the case the law allows them to allocate portions of their fixed costs to the process meaning they would be able to scrub the profit out.
quote:
You took my quote out of context, but did not change it.
I don't believe that I've ever backed anyone on a call for moderation. I'd have to look. But I know I've uniformly opposed any calls for content-based moderation, and particularly when they are based on declarations that your opponents are arguing in "bad faith." Just from reading your analysis its you have not engaged in the kind of rigorous argument and analysis necessary to determine that anyone else is making a bad faith argument.
quote:
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?

Yes, I deny the charge that I reversed the meaning of what you went on to say. You in fact specifically called for action against posters, who in your incorrect view, are ignoring proven facts (in my opinion based largely on their disagreement with your own conclusions).
quote:
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.
I apologize for that then, I suppose I should have included the possibility that you wanted them to be perpetually warned but not risk being banned if they continue to express wrong thoughts. Though then its not clear how you expect to get the sand out of the gears of discussion.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
So from here on I'll try to refer to them a "radical Conservatives"...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd actually be satisfied with "some" conservatives.

I toyed with that label, but it seemed too whimpy to me. After all, Radical Conservatives are far more loud and influential than your brand of Conservatism. (Just look at how ACORN was disbanded based on rumor and innuendo.)

While your brand of Conservatism may be in the majority, it is neither the face nor the driver of the ideology. The Radicals are getting the press and calling the shots, choosing the representatives, and steering your movement away from calm reasoning toward ideological purity. [Frown]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
Pete,

Not to bug you, but...

Is there any evidence that the procedures to preserve tissue are more dangerous to the patient? I'm not saying there's no evidence, just I am not aware of any.

I'm not aware that any study has been done. But since there's an inherent conflict of interest, ethics require that the issue be explored. Perhaps it has. Perhaps it hasn't. I haven't been able to find info, but from experience, my guess is that LR could find it if it's been done.

The trouble here is that the right wing has little interest in investigating patient safety, and in polarized political environments, folks that feel they are under fire often take short cuts with the rights with those they supposedly serve. A sense of persecution creates a closed subculture, where people who ask questions are seen as enemies. It's hard to run an ethical ship under such circumstances.

I didn't consider your quesstion bothersome, btw.
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
Pete,

You seem to be saying that there is a conflict of interest because the physician wants to preserve tissue, but also wants to minimize patient risk.

That conflict only exists if there is increased risk when preserving tissue. If there is no evidence of that increased risk, there is no conflict.

So without evidence of increased risk, there is no evidence of conflict of interest.

Here's an analogy: I propose that doctors playing golf within a week of a procedure increase the risk to their patients. Should that issue be explored, even if there is no evidence whatsoever to support it? If so, where do you draw the line on potential conflict of interest?

Seriati,

I am asking Mod to deter posters who clearly argue in bad faith. We disagree on whether that includes you.

But in any case, my clear statement was that if posters argue in bad faith, Mod should deter them, but not if I simply disagree.

Your clear statement is that I want Mod to deter posters that I disagree with.

If you want to pretend that you have not reversed my intention with your out-of-context quote, continue to pretend, but the truth is obvious.

quote:
its not clear how you expect to get the sand out of the gears of discussion.
Try reading my previous response to you, where I explained just that.

And finally-

There is a debate over whether it is reasonable to doubt that PP is only getting reimbursement for their costs.

Four experts say it is not reasonable to doubt that. That is a piece of information that is considered when determining reasonable doubt.

On the other side of that debate, you do not have a single shred of evidence, and refuse to give any credence whatsoever to expert opinions. I would even say you adamantly refuse to acknowledge that their statements have any bearing whatsoever in determining reasonable doubt. (Correct me if I am wrong).

But if my statements are correct, you are arguing in bad faith.

What facts could you possibly find with an audit that would undermine the experts opinions? Do you think PP is preparing tissue samples in a way that the experts are unaware of so their costs are somehow lower? If you can't provide an answer, then you are arguing in bad faith.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
Pete,

You seem to be saying that there is a conflict of interest because the physician wants to preserve tissue, but also wants to minimize patient risk.

That conflict only exists if there is increased risk when preserving tissue. If there is no evidence of that increased risk, there is no conflict.

So without evidence of increased risk, there is no evidence of conflict of interest.

Whether the inherent conflict of interests results in an actual downgrading of care and safety, probably depends on the specific case.

But here's a question for you: would you see an inherent conflict of interest if the doctors were required by law to, if possible, extract the fetus alive and undamaged? Or would you say, as with fetal tissue, that "without EVIDENCE of increased risk, there is no evidence of conflict of interest."
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
I would say universally: without evidence that X increases risk, there is no evidence of conflict of interest when attempting to do X during a procedure.

Conflict of interest, in this context, means that doing X must be balanced against patient safety. If the two are independent, there is no balancing involved

If someone familiar with the X and the procedure provides reasons why risk is increased, then that might be reason to commission a study. If the study showed no increased risk, there is no conflict of interest.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
That last post looked like your previous post rendered in the style of mojo jojo. Was there some new point that I missed and had not previously addressed?

"Conflict of interest, in this context, means that doing X must be balanced against patient safety. If the two are independent, there is no balancing involved"

pretending for sake of argument that I accept your definition of "conflict of interest," please answer my previous question:

" would you see an inherent conflict of interest if the doctors were required by law to, if possible, extract the fetus alive and undamaged? Or would you say, as with fetal tissue, that "without EVIDENCE of increased risk, there is no evidence of conflict of interest."
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
But here's a question for you: would you see an inherent conflict of interest if the doctors were required by law to, if possible, extract the fetus alive and undamaged? Or would you say, as with fetal tissue, that "without EVIDENCE of increased risk, there is no evidence of conflict of interest."

Live birth, though, is, hands down riskier, especially since there's no scuttle option if a risk is perceived as there is with any tissue extraction, so the question is moot.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Why "arguably"? Because if Pyr were con sistent with half of what he'd said about his extraordinarily broad definition of "rape," he would probably place a higher priority on informed consent in this case.

Where do you have evidence of a lack of informed consent here? The patients have to request it, they are counseled on the procedure, they sign papers affirming that they understand the process. What more are you asking for? Your arguments seems to be implying, without any evidence to support your assertions, that they're failing in basic diligence in the matter, where PP's general reputation, from people that actually have used it for various services, is that it's exceptionally diligent about educating its clients and helping them pick the choices that best fit their needs and desires with full understanding.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
By the way, it appears that several states have in fact conducted investigations and determined either that no law was violated, or that there wasn't any violation worth trying to prove. That is exactly the kind of result I was looking for.
In other words, you were looking for PP to be drained of money and resources for specious investigations (note that they're being conducted in states where not tissue donation is done, and even in states where no abortions are performed) even though routine inspections showed no evidence of wrongdoing?

I think it's absurd to say that any tip from someone whose known to be actively trying to slander and harass someone should be respected- that turns the law into a tool to perpetuate harassment, as happened in these cases.

And that's just on credibility, not even getting to the fact that the "tip" showed no evidence of wrongdoing, and in fact supported the notion that they're acting in complete compliance with the law.

And initial investigations should have been focused on determining what just coming to light now- specifically that the "unedited" video was actually edited to try to create a false impression of scandal, even though it failed even there to anyone but those looking for an excuse to cry scandal.
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
Pete,

I thought I did answer the question. I never see conflict of interest if there is no evidence of risk.

I said it a different way because the first time didn't seem to get through, and you asked the same question.

As I understand the question, it is a tautology. The definition I gave for conflict is that by doing X, you increase risk to the patient. If doing X never increases the risk to the patient, it is by definition impossible to have a conflict of interest.

quote:
would you see an inherent conflict of interest if the doctors were required by law to, if possible, extract the fetus alive and undamaged?
If by "if possible" you mean without any additional risk to the mother, then there is no conflict of interest.

If by "if possible", you mean even if it kills the mother, then there is a conflict of interest.

If there is no evidence that extracting the fetus alive and undamaged is a risk to the mother, then there is no evidence of conflict of interest.

And finally, if there is no evidence that extracting tissue undamaged is a risk to the patient, then there is no evidence of conflict of interest.

If you have evidence that extracting tissue undamaged is a risk to the patient, say so. If you don't, then you have no evidence of conflict of interest.

I'm not saying there is no possibility of conflict of interest. Just that I have no reason to believe your assertion, since you have provided no evidence.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"I'm not saying there is no possibility of conflict of interest. Just that I have no reason to believe your assertion, since you have provided no evidence."

I'm not sure you understood my assertion sufficient to say whether you believe it or not.

quote:
would you see an inherent conflict of interest if the doctors were required by law to, if possible, extract the fetus alive and undamaged?

If by "if possible" you mean without any additional risk to the mother, then there is no conflict of interest.

What I meant was without any additional procedural risk to the mother Do you have a problem with that? Or do you think that a doctor should weigh in the risk that the mother might take the baby home and then be kept up all night with its crying, putting her at "risk" for insomnia?
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
I guess I still don't understand the question.

Are you saying that if a woman went in for an abortion, and a doctor was legally obligated to extract the fetus alive and undamaged if it does not increase physical risk to the woman, would there be a conflict of interest in that the mother might decide to keep the baby?

Did I get that right?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
I guess I still don't understand the question.

Are you saying that if a woman went in for an abortion, and a doctor was legally obligated to extract the fetus alive and undamaged if it does not increase physical risk to the woman, would there be a conflict of interest in that the mother might decide to keep the baby?

Did I get that right?

No.
Rephrase:

quote:
if a woman went in for an abortion, and a doctor was legally obligated to extract the fetus alive and undamaged if it does not increase *physical* risk to the woman, would that law create a conflict of interest?
Because extreme pro-abortion groups say it does, and that if a physician forsees substantial psychological stress, say of becoming a mother or adopting the baby out, or being kept up at night, that such considerations should absolutely override the life of a nine month fetus.

I'm personally fond of Carly Fiorani's nuanced position on abortion, which allows unrestricted up to 20 weeks (about the time that normal human brain waves are regularly measured) and restricted to cases of rape, incest, and danger to mother's physical health after 20 weeks.
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
There are way too many factors in that hypothetical to give an answer.

Can the woman immediately surrender the rights to the baby and go home, given that she has likely made no preparations whatsoever to care for the baby?

Did the woman want the abortion because the fetus had a horrible genetic disease?

Will she be charged for a delivery instead of an abortion? What about neonatal care, since the fetus must be in the first 26 weeks (in most states) to be aborted?

If the fetus is 20 weeks, what is the point of delivering it "alive and undamaged"?

Assuming that the woman has no increased "physical" risk, that she will bear no financial or parental responsibility after the procedure, and that she is informed before the procedure that the baby may be delivered alive and undamaged, then there is no conflict of interest.

If the woman is responsible for $300,000 in medical bills for her 24 week fetus that she made an appointment to abort, then there is conflict of interest.

BTW, when is bringing up the opinion of extreme anybody actually help rational discussion?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Can the woman immediately surrender the rights to the baby and go home, given that she has likely made no preparations whatsoever to care for the baby?"

In your mind, is that justification for abortion? If a doctor could remove the baby alive without more physical harm than the harm of abortion, do you think the doctor still should have an ethical duty to kill the baby because the mother isn't financially or emotionally ready to kill it?

See for me, and IMO for everyone that can honestly call themselves "pro choice," the right to abortion is based on a woman's right to her own body. "My body my choice", not "my offspring, my option."

"when is bringing up the opinion of extreme anybody actually help rational discussion? "

Because that extreme view represents 4+ members of the US Supreme Court.

"Will she be charged for a delivery instead of an abortion?"

I'm not sure a late term abortion costs less than a regular deliver. But is this really the basis on which we should deciding the fate of human life? Seems to me "her wallet, her choice" has less punch than her body her choice. And if you start weighing money against a right to life, then you open the doors to systematic misogyny through the so called "father's right to abortion." [Mad]

[ August 29, 2015, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Pete, how's this conflict of interest any different from organ donation?

As far as conflict, it isn't. When you go donate a kidney, you understand right out that the removal is not for your benefit, but for the recipient. You are made to understand that you are going to undergo compromise and risk to your health in order to donate bone marrow or a kidney, etc. I'm simply asking if there is that sort of informed consent with the donation of fetal tissue.
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
quote:
restricted to cases of rape, incest, and danger to mother's physical health after 20 weeks
What about anencephaly, which can be detected during pregnancy, and is untreatable? Almost all babies with this condition die shortly after birth. Would you advocate laws that force the mother to carry this baby to term?
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
Whoa!!!!!!

quote:
"Can the woman immediately surrender the rights to the baby and go home, given that she has likely made no preparations whatsoever to care for the baby?"

In your mind, is that justification for abortion? If a doctor could remove the baby alive without more physical harm than the harm of abortion, do you think the doctor still should have an ethical duty to kill the baby because the mother isn't financially or emotionally ready to kill it?

Pete, take a deep breath.

The question was conflict of interest, not justification for abortion.

Let's take one example. If the mother will be saddled with $300,000 in debt if the doctor decides there is no physical risk, and the doctor is on the fence about that, then the doctor has a conflict. Not an ethical duty to abort because of finances but clearly a conflict.

And in my mind, that is not justification for abortion. (Not in laws I want to pass to direct other peoples, actions, but in my mind.)

What was the point of the whole conflict of interest thing anyway?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
You're right. I got off track and thank you for bringing it back on.

My understanding is that abortion proponents in NARAL and Partial Parenthood have argued strenuously against a law obligating doctors to try to extricate late term fetuses alive, if it can be done without posing more physical danger to the mother. They have argued conflict of interest, saying that giving the doctor that second purpose of preserving the baby's life compromises the mother's mental health if not her physical health. I'm simply pointing out that a similar conflict exists potentially for intact removal of "valuable" tissue.
------------
One issue that neither the right nor the left want us to address, is the distinction between a so called "abortion" where the fetus is already dead, and the physician's job is simply to remove it. This is one case where I would be OK with the D&X procedure, and I also think it should be perfectly OK to donate the tissues. Does anyone disagree on that point?
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
Pete,

I think the conflict is similar, but the scale is not. Whether a woman gives birth to a child is vastly different than whether a woman donates tissue.

You have kids. Imagine going in for a vasectomy, but depending on the situation, you may be bringing home a child. That is a significant life changing event.

How does that compare to finding out that the skin graft you donated didn't take?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I have not seen stats regarding the safety of delivering an intact dead fetus (like the one that the Partial Parenthood doctor was joking about sending by mail. Seems yo me that it would be more dangerous that a live birth, eswpecially if rigor mortis had set in.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"I agree that's a surprise, but not a medical issue worth killing a baby over.

If the patient is emotionally fragile, the clinic should offer a "closed abortion" where patient is not informed if the fetus lives, and Planned Parenthood can charge a "reasonable delivery and handling fee to an adoption agency. I suspect the proceeds would be more than what they get from the tissue banks.

Bring on the objections [Smile]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
You're basically saying that PP should assume it has the authority to do whatever it wants with the woman's body and that her wishes in that regarded should be treated as irrelevant?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I have not seen stats regarding the safety of delivering an intact dead fetus (like the one that the Partial Parenthood doctor was joking about sending by mail. Seems yo me that it would be more dangerous that a live birth, eswpecially if rigor mortis had set in.

That's intuitively safer in a medical setting, because if any possible complication presents itself there's no need to balance the interest in keeping it intact against the safety of the procedure. You can simply do what's needed to mitigate the risks and hope for better luck next time.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
I'm simply pointing out that a similar conflict exists potentially for intact removal of "valuable" tissue.
No it doesn't, because the needed tissue isn't tied to any specific procedure, but rather the ability to get it across any one of a number of procedures (while at the same time using a process that's far less dangerous than any fully intact birth.

And obligation to perform a live birth not only undermines the woman's power of consent in the situation, but it doesn't generalize, each birth has to be handled as an objective unto itself once committed to, you can't scuttle it halfway through and say "Maybe next time" in order to keep the risk level unchanged.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"No it doesn't, because the needed tissue isn't tied to any specific procedure, but rather the ability to get it across any one of a number of procedures "

As usual, you change the facts to suit your argument. In the case i just cited, the partial parenthood rep was talking about shipping an intact fetus body. So if d&x is "medically necessary" for the mother's health when the fetus is ALIVE, then why is it not necessary when the fetus is dead?


"And obligation to perform a live birth not only undermines the woman's power of consent in the situation,"

What obligation? You have already conceded that she's signed over rights to the "desirable" tissues and organs so long as they are safely extricated from her. Partial Parenthood acknowledged on video that getting a whole intact fetus specimin is particularly desirable. Since there are more than enough worthy couples seeking to adopt live babies, clearly those organs and tissues are most valuable as an intact living baby. how does the existing waiver not cover a termination of pregnancy which the baby survives?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
You're basically saying that PP should assume it has the authority to do whatever it wants with the woman's body and that her wishes in that regarded should be treated as irrelevant?

Not at all. I'm assuming that if a woman comes in for an abortion, and signs away all rights to the fetal tissue, that the woman's wishes with regard to what is done to the FETUS' body is irrelevant.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
Another video drop, released unedited.
quote:
Inthe video Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Melissa Farrell, admits how the Houston Planned Parenthood abortion clinic is a high volume abortion facility that provides a large number of abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy. She admits the abortion center provides a high volume of fetal remains to biologic companies and discusses how abortion practitioners at this facility are able and willing to alter abortion procedures in order to ensure intact remains that can then be sold to biologic companies.

Farrell also admits that abortion practitioners at this facility actually conduct their own experimentation on human fetal remains obtained during abortions. She said price for the fetal remains are broken down by Planned Parenthood into “line items” and “baked” into contracts involving the sale of fetal remains.


 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"She admits the abortion center provides a high volume of fetal remains to biologic companies and discusses how abortion practitioners at this facility are able and willing to alter abortion procedures in order to ensure intact remains that can then be sold to biologic companies."

This is my point. If they are able to alter abortion procedures to ensure intact remains, what's the big freaking deal about altering the procedures to allow survival of the child?

If the issue is just money, I'm sure that something could be provided for handling, etc.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I have not seen stats regarding the safety of delivering an intact dead fetus (like the one that the Partial Parenthood doctor was joking about sending by mail. Seems yo me that it would be more dangerous that a live birth, eswpecially if rigor mortis had set in.

That's intuitively safer in a medical setting, because if any possible complication presents itself there's no need to balance the interest in keeping it intact against the safety of the procedure.
How's that any different than my proposal where if there's a complication, the first priority is the physical safety of the mother?

A woman's right to her body here means she can pay to have the fetus extricted, in a procedure that minimizes physical harm to her. It doesn't mean she should be able to put a hit on the baby, or (as in 2 New York cases) that the doctor gets to strangle a surviving baby on the table.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
How's that any different than my proposal where if there's a complication, the first priority is the physical safety of the mother?
Because you've already started down the road with a higher risk procedure that it not as easy to divert from? At that point you've already compromised the safety of the mother far more than you would have if you started assuming you were going to abort the pregnancy.

quote:
A woman's right to her body here means she can pay to have the fetus extricted, in a procedure that minimizes physical harm to her.
Exactly. Which is why putting her at risk by choosing any procedure intended to result in a live birth, without her full knowledge and consent, is bad practice. You can choose minimal risk or live birth, not both.

quote:
or (as in 2 New York cases) that the doctor gets to strangle a surviving baby on the table.
something that is already illegal, presuming the child is viable and not going to die painfully of its deformities in short order, thus completely moot.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
This is my point. If they are able to alter abortion procedures to ensure intact remains, what's the big freaking deal about altering the procedures to allow survival of the child?

The former is a trivial change within a given procedure has no effect on risk, the latter is a change to a different procedure that has a huge effect on risk.

You're being snookered by a very dishonest use of the phrase "change the procedure" to blur an important distinction here.

[ September 01, 2015, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"The former is a trivial change within a given procedure has no effect on risk, the latter is a change to a different procedure that has a huge effect on risk"

There you go again ... Broad pronouncement without adressing facts. So i ask you again, how specifically is the procedure different for delivering an intact dead baby, as opposed to delivering a live one? Why is it necessary to slice and dice the living baby via d&x, but not when an intact dead fetus is desirable",
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"or (as in 2 New York cases) that the doctor gets to strangle a surviving baby on the table.
something that is already illegal"

Is it?. The New York courts found strangulation a perfectly legal form of "abortion". legality aside, thaat's the moral company one keeps if one demands that a mother's "wishes" be consulted as to whether a surviving fetus be allowed to live. Her right to her own body gives her at. much right to elect extrication procedure. If she's signed up ok to squeeze out a dead baby, no need to change procedure if baby turns out alive. That is, if you honestly believe (as I do) that the choice is based on personal body sosovereignty.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Why is it necessary to slice and dice the living baby via d&x, but not when an intact dead fetus is desirable
Size, viability, intent to preserve developmental point. Inducing labor to attempt a live birth vs a DnE, where there's no need to be concerned about incidental damage in the process, never mind that the dead fetus is not going to be as large as a full term baby. The vacuum pump that's used for a DnE is not going to be very compatible with A fully developed fetus, which is part of why it's not used beyond the second trimester, with the only procedural "change" being going from "just suck it all out" to "see if you can aim it right to do the least damage to what you're sucking out". A difference that poses no change in risk at all to the woman undergoing the procedure, but just requires a little more care and attention on the part of the doctor performing it.

If you're thinking if IDX/DnX, used for late term abortions in the third trimester, (The latter half of the second trimester, 20-26 or 27 weeks, counts as a "late term abortion", which is why DnE is associated with it) the big difference is the in the fact that the first step of an IDX is to reduce the fetus's cranial circumference, (which is to say, crush its skull) so that it comes out without additional stress. Again, a process that is not conducive to attempting a live birth.

And the key difference lies in "is desirable" vs "is a priority". If you have "attempt to get it out alive" as a priority then you have to go with a caesarian or labor induction, both distinctly higher risk than DnE or IDX, which both involve initial steps that make post-extraction viability exceptionally unlikely, and are impossible to start with if you have making a live extraction as even a partial priority.

quote:
The New York courts found strangulation a perfectly legal form of "abortion".
Meaning, apparently, that the babies in question were already non-viable, and the alternative would have been to let them die over a few hours or days of their deformities. All I can do is guess here, since you're talking ambiguously and only expanding the details your offering on these asserted cases as suits your argument
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I toyed with that label, but it seemed too whimpy to me. After all, Radical Conservatives are far more loud and influential than your brand of Conservatism.

Not sure what "brand" that would be. I'm moderate than anything else.
quote:
(Just look at how ACORN was disbanded based on rumor and innuendo.)
This seems to be the latest piece of revisionist history. ACORN paid the price for failing to have institutional controls that prevented abusive and criminal situations. Happens in all kinds of contexts.
quote:
While your brand of Conservatism may be in the majority, it is neither the face nor the driver of the ideology. The Radicals are getting the press and calling the shots, choosing the representatives, and steering your movement away from calm reasoning toward ideological purity. [Frown]
If that were true, with all the claims about RINOS not being electable, and blah blah blah by extreme conservatives, would the last candidates of the Republican Party really have been Romney, McCain and Bush? Not a murder's row of conservative role models. Would Trump be the front runner today?

No. The extreme conservatives are very vocal and they have a bigger pull on the R's than the D's (which by the way DO IN FACT have them too - e.g. WV) by percentage, but they don't control the party. The media finds it easier to pretend they do though, nothing fires up liberals faster than claiming that any Republican anywhere is nothing but a Huckabee clone waiting to happen, when the reality is there are far more that are Republicans for fiscal and economic issues and pay lip service to the social conservative issues.
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
By the way, it appears that several states have in fact conducted investigations and determined either that no law was violated, or that there wasn't any violation worth trying to prove. That is exactly the kind of result I was looking for.
In other words, you were looking for PP to be drained of money and resources for specious investigations (note that they're being conducted in states where not tissue donation is done, and even in states where no abortions are performed) even though routine inspections showed no evidence of wrongdoing?
That is in no "other words" for what I said or was looking for. Nor is it even remotely reasonable in a country where EVERYONE is subject to regulatory compliance and the incurrence of expenses (even private citizens have to incur expenses in connection with an audit), to claim that there is somehow a special burden being imposed.
quote:
I think it's absurd to say that any tip from someone whose known to be actively trying to slander and harass someone should be respected- that turns the law into a tool to perpetuate harassment, as happened in these cases.
Well except that law enforcement is discretionary, and they are perfectly capable of evaluating the weight a tip should receive.
quote:
And that's just on credibility, not even getting to the fact that the "tip" showed no evidence of wrongdoing, and in fact supported the notion that they're acting in complete compliance with the law.
Which is an overstatement, there was nothing that supported the notion they were acting in complete compliance, and plenty to imply they were not carefully or accurately doing so.
quote:
And initial investigations should have been focused on determining what just coming to light now- specifically that the "unedited" video was actually edited to try to create a false impression of scandal, even though it failed even there to anyone but those looking for an excuse to cry scandal.
Well of course the video should have been investigated. It's also possible that the editing and releasing of the video could be deemed actionable slander, is it not? I've got no favorites here, let the authorities hold them accountable.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
ACORN paid the price for failing to have institutional controls that prevented abusive and criminal situations.
Well, no. That's the Republican line, but it's a lie.

quote:
there was nothing that supported the notion they were acting in complete compliance
This is also a lie. Every single thing the PP reps say in the videos makes it clear that they are consciously making an effort to comply with the law, and actively avoiding doing anything that might break the law -- even when egged on by the professional liars behind the camera.

[ September 04, 2015, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
ACORN paid the price for failing to have institutional controls that prevented abusive and criminal situations. Happens in all kinds of contexts.
As far as I recall, Tom is right. ACORN was never proven to have done anything criminal. But it funding was pulled before the situation was determined, based on edited videos which were shown to be manipulated.

The fact that you seem to believe that something criminal occurred shows that the Radical Conservatives have been successful, at least with you. [Frown]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
that were true, with all the claims about RINOS not being electable, and blah blah blah by extreme conservatives, would the last candidates of the Republican Party really have been Romney, McCain and Bush? Not a murder's row of conservative role models...
...the reality is there are far more that are Republicans for fiscal and economic issues and pay lip service to the social conservative issues.

True, but consider what the first acts of the Conservative House was this year: limiting abortion. Hardly a fiscal or economic issue.

And that's the thing, they have to pay more than lip service, but actually throw them a bone, or more. And they are insisting on getting more meat on that bone. And the Republican Party currently cannot afford to lose them. So they will (and do!) have more influence than their numbers would indicate.

quote:
Would Trump be the front runner today?
Actually, Trump fits the definition of a Radical Conservative pretty nicely. Plays fast and loose with the facts and truth; takes no prisoners; plays to his constituates prejudices; considers anyone who criticizes him a "loser." He lies to your face, and doubles-down if you call him on it. He actually confirms my suspicions rather than refute them. [Frown]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Why is it necessary to slice and dice the living baby via d&x, but not when an intact dead fetus is desirable
Size, viability, intent to preserve developmental point. Inducing labor to attempt a live birth vs a DnE, where there's no need to be concerned about incidental damage in the process, never mind that the dead fetus is not going to be as large as a full term baby.
[Eek!] [Eek!]

Did Pyr just claim that D&X is usually performed on "full term bab[ies]"

Damn, Pyr. With friends like you, Partial Parenthood hardly needs enemies. You've evidently swallowed the extreme Pro-lifer description of facts. According to NARAL's own stats, D&X is usually performed between the fifth and seventh month.

"Baby" doesn't describe some late fetal stage of development. Fetus is what it is before birth, and Baby is what it is after live birth. If a fetus born or extricated alive at 4 months, it's a "baby." If a fetus stays in the uterus for over 10 months (I was in for 11) it's still a fetus until birth.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Actually, Trump fits the definition of a Radical Conservative pretty nicely. Plays fast and loose with the facts and truth; takes no prisoners; plays to his constituates prejudices; considers anyone who criticizes him a "loser." He lies to your face, and doubles-down if you call him on it. He actually confirms my suspicions rather than refute them. [Frown]

What do you expect from someone who entered the ring at the Clintom's request? He's not a radical conservative; he's Clinton's freaking Ringer.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
ACORN paid the price for failing to have institutional controls that prevented abusive and criminal situations.
Well, no. That's the Republican line, but it's a lie.
And you're just meme blasting now. Trying to subvert people's memories with partial trues. What I said is literally true, they didn't have effective institutional controls, and they had staff that were caught in illegal and inappropriate contexts. What you have on your side is pretty much just propaganda, citing to conviction rates (irrelevant) and counting on poor memory (subversion).
quote:
quote:
there was nothing that supported the notion they were acting in complete compliance
This is also a lie. Every single thing the PP reps say in the videos makes it clear that they are consciously making an effort to comply with the law, and actively avoiding doing anything that might break the law -- even when egged on by the professional liars behind the camera.
Maybe you should watch it again. You're completely overstating the case, the video's show they thought compliance was a joking matter. Not that they took it seriously. You're back to asserting that one needs proof worthy of conviction to investigate something, which if the correct standard would mean no more convictions or investigations.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
ACORN paid the price for failing to have institutional controls that prevented abusive and criminal situations. Happens in all kinds of contexts.
As far as I recall, Tom is right. ACORN was never proven to have done anything criminal.
Which is of course a half truth. Whether anyone bothered to try and get a conviction is not a measure of whether criminal activity occurred. And whether criminal activity is proven is hardly the correct standard for whether an organization should be receiving federal funding.
quote:
But it funding was pulled before the situation was determined, based on edited videos which were shown to be manipulated.
Not in any relevant way. Plus the videos had nothing to do with the election law violations that they also had staff engaged in.
quote:
The fact that you seem to believe that something criminal occurred shows that the Radical Conservatives have been successful, at least with you. [Frown]
The "fact" that you think an organization that had no controls in place to prevent it's staff from election law violations, and in fact had a compensation system in place designed to cause false registrations, and had staff members caught on camera telling "pimps" how to get treatment for their underaged hookers, was somehow shut down before the truth came out, shows how easy it is to rewrite history and reality with a meme and a willing audience. Propaganda works.

Is there NO level of reality you guys won't try and dispute?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
And whether criminal activity is proven is hardly the correct standard for whether an organization should be receiving federal funding.
But here's the interesting question: if ACORN was not in fact criminally encouraging and enabling voter fraud, on what grounds should its funding have been pulled?

quote:
You're completely overstating the case, the video's show they thought compliance was a joking matter.
I joke frequently with people about HIPAA regulations, and joked frequently about FERPA when I worked at a college. Is it your contention that I do not take these regulations seriously?

quote:
Is there NO level of reality you guys won't try and dispute?
I mourn for the Seriati who used to post here, who was not completely swallowed by the machine. What happened to you, man?
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
And whether criminal activity is proven is hardly the correct standard for whether an organization should be receiving federal funding.
But here's the interesting question: if ACORN was not in fact criminally encouraging and enabling voter fraud, on what grounds should its funding have been pulled?
Interesting flip of duty of proof. On what grounds should it have been receiving funds in the first place?

I already laid out the case for why they should have had their funding pulled. A voter registration group that has no controls in place to prevent, and in fact has a compensation structure that encourages, fraudulent registration. There's no reason TO fund such a group. Make the grants available for groups that act properly.

But even more basically, there shouldn't be an entitlement at all, funding should be tied to serving governmental goals and this kind of garbage directly frustrates those goals.
quote:
quote:
You're completely overstating the case, the video's show they thought compliance was a joking matter.
I joke frequently with people about HIPAA regulations, and joked frequently about FERPA when I worked at a college. Is it your contention that I do not take these regulations seriously?
I heard a comedian once make a joke about fruit, is it your contention that fruit is no laughing matter? Lol. I couldn't care less about your position on HIPAA, nor is it relevant. The implications of these statements were more than grounds to investigate.

But yeah if your "jokes about HIPAA" were say about how you've looked up client records of celebrities, you'd get investigated and have earned it. You know they also arrest you if you joke about having a bomb in your suitcase at the airport.
quote:
quote:
Is there NO level of reality you guys won't try and dispute?
I mourn for the Seriati who used to post here, who was not completely swallowed by the machine. What happened to you, man?
Just annoyance with putting forward reasonable responses and having to wade through illogical response after illogical response. Go back on this thread, read the whole thing, I put a lot of effort into putting forward logical arguments and all I got back were avoidances, non sequitors, illogical statements, emotional arguments not supported by facts, and oh yeah back handed calls for banning (or for like ummm... not banning) based on unsupported assertions of bad faith.

I find that in the run up to elections this kind of garbage always happens, people seem to lose the ability to separate their beliefs from their arguments.

Too much whitewashing for me to be happy. Honestly, what fault's are you admitting too at all from the positions you agree with?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
On what grounds should it have been receiving funds in the first place?
*sigh* See, I can't tell whether the new version of you means this question seriously or not. Because here's the thing: if we're going to go after every single federally-funded program with trumped-up charges and fake scandals in order to demand that they justify their federal funding or have it yanked, the Randbots have won. Literally all they have to do is secretly film a couple dozen people, pick the three or four who say something that can be willfully misinterpreted by someone wanting to fluff up outrage, and then say, "Hey, prove to us that you really deserve this money other legislators previously decided you deserved." And that would just be sad.

quote:
A voter registration group that has no controls in place to prevent, and in fact has a compensation structure that encourages, fraudulent registration.
Except that both of these are untrue. There WERE in fact controls in place to prevent/minimize fraudulent registrations, and deliberately soliciting fraudulent registrations was grounds for dismissal -- and criminal prosecution, actually. What you are recalling are the lies that never got retracted by conservative "news" sites.

quote:
The implications of these statements were more than grounds to investigate.
See, you keep saying this, and every time you say it I see someone like Glenn Beck sticking his hand up your butt and moving your jaw like a puppet. What implications were there, exactly?

quote:
But yeah if your "jokes about HIPAA" were say about how you've looked up client records of celebrities, you'd get investigated and have earned it.
And yet, if I said it in a clearly sarcastic tone, something like "Yeah, I spend most of my day looking up pics of Angelina Jolie's breast surgeries" would be interpreted by sane people familiar with human interaction as a joke and not an admission of guilt. Because that's how people actually talk, Seriati.

quote:
Go back on this thread, read the whole thing, I put a lot of effort into putting forward logical arguments...
To be fair, I don't see any logical arguments from you, here. I see intentional arguments, but nothing logical.

[ September 06, 2015, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
quote:
In other words, you were looking for PP to be drained of money and resources for specious investigations (note that they're being conducted in states where not tissue donation is done, and even in states where no abortions are performed) even though routine inspections showed no evidence of wrongdoing?

That is in no "other words" for what I said or was looking for. Nor is it even remotely reasonable in a country where EVERYONE is subject to regulatory compliance and the incurrence of expenses (even private citizens have to incur expenses in connection with an audit), to claim that there is somehow a special burden being imposed.
But were not talking about the regular audit and inspection process here. Were talking about a special investigation that disregards that process and effectively doubles the cost despite not having any substantial grounds aside from political axe grinding to be conducted.

The way you're trying to conflate the special investigations being called in response to the video with routine inspections that are already occurring and that confirm compliance is absurd, especially since they're almost all happening in states where tissue donation isn't
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:

Did Pyr just claim that D&X is usually performed on "full term bab[ies]"


I said no such thin. PLease do not make such outrageously false statements, it's not conducive to good discussion.

quote:
According to NARAL's own stats, D&X is usually performed between the fifth and seventh month.
Indeed. In the third trimester, like I said in that very message if you weren't so actively and disingenuously misrepresenting me.

quote:
"Baby" doesn't describe some late fetal stage of development. Fetus is what it is before birth, and Baby is what it is after live birth.
Indeed, and is what it would be if the woman was forced to undergo a live birth procedure like you're tying to force against her will.

quote:
If a fetus born or extricated alive at 4 months, it's a "baby." If a fetus stays in the uterus for over 10 months (I was in for 11) it's still a fetus until birth.
Good. Now that you're clear on that actualyl respond to what I said instead with those facts in mind instead of misrepresenting my position.

Forcing a woman into labor to attempt a live birth is a very different procedure than a DnX, which involves putting the fetus into a breach position, evacuating the brain, and crushing the skull before removing it. The two procedures are completely incompatible from the start, so there is no way to induce labor, then abort to a DnX, especially since the induction of labor, in and of itself represents a massive increase in risk.

And given the nature of a DnX, if a fetus is extracted and still has enough brain matter for its lungs to reflexively operate, then it seems that strangulation is perfectly reasonable instead of trying to resuscitate an otherwise brainless vegetable or simply allowing it to drift along for an indeterminate amount of time until the reflexes fade.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
I already laid out the case for why they should have had their funding pulled. A voter registration group that has no controls in place to prevent, and in fact has a compensation structure that encourages, fraudulent registration. There's no reason TO fund such a group. Make the grants available for groups that act properly.
They had controls in place. In fact, the primary reason that the issue was traceable to ACORN is because it was ACORN's controls that flagged the questionable registrations. It got milked for finds by its contractors, to be sure, but that should have been a purely internal issue. ACORN itself followed the law scrupulously. both by submitting the questionable registrations, which it was legally required to do, once it was in possession of them, and by flagging them as questionable, in compliance with the law to help make sure that they were investigated and discarded by the election boards that actually had the legal authority to do so.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Which is an overstatement, there was nothing that supported the notion they were acting in complete compliance, and plenty to imply they were not carefully or accurately doing so.
Except of course that everything in the video except the false assertions made about what it showed supported the fact that they were complying the law, and even actively resisting the attempts of the people shooting it to try to trap them into violations. It's _only_ the misleading assertions of the people who made the videos and misleadingly edited them that suggested wrongdoing, something that the videos themselves actively debunk. Heck, even you keep deceptively trying to recast the ballpark quote followed by resistance to the actors to up the price as "negotiation", despite the clear fact that PP was refusing to negotiate and the actors were negotiating in reverse; trying to bid up the quote rather than bid it down as they would have in an earnest negotiation.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Jindal is trying to defund PP in Louisiana. His argument to the court is that there are 2,000 other licensed professionals in the state who have and can provide the services PP does. A judge reviewed the list and pointed out that it included "hundreds of entries for specialists such as ophthalmologists; nursing homes caregivers; dentists; ear, nose, and throat doctors; and even cosmetic surgeons". He said,
quote:
"It strikes me as extremely odd that you have a dermatologist, an audiologist, a dentist who are billing for family planning services," said the judge, John deGravelles, who will determine in the next week whether it is legal for the state to end Planned Parenthood's Medicaid contracts. "But that is what you're representing to the court? You're telling me that they can provide family planning and related services?
The state revised the list and came back with 29 names

This raises a serious point in addition to the usual Keystone Kops behavior of another Republican seeking to become the President. Why is it that any of those other 1971 "professionals" have used medical insurance billing codes for family planning? Jindal is apparently not interested in the answer to that question.

[ September 11, 2015, 07:16 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Why is it that any of those other 1971 "professionals" have used medical insurance billing codes for family planning?
Speaking as someone who does a lot of work with medical coding, I would not be at all surprised if these professionals either a) had at least one legitimate family planning PX at some point in their career, perhaps as an internist; or b) fat-fingered a code and recorded at least one PX as a family planning visit. And if Jindal's people just pulled every single provider of any role attached to a family planning event, without filtering on specialty or frequency, this is the sort of thing they'd get.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Oh, of course I do. But miscoding is so freakishly easy to do that I don't see a reason to assume fraud. I once audited a hospital in Kentucky that was showing nearly 90% of their profit coming from routine checkups, which turned out to be a single lazy coder putting everything -- including heart transplants -- under the same ICD9. It was only by analyzing the secondary codes attached to the primary visit that they were able to resolve the problem.

Edited to add: this was in response to a post, now vanished, that asked whether I didn't think this could also be evidence of fraud.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
New video drop.
quote:
The video highlights conversations with Dr. Carolyn Westhoff, Senior Medical Advisor for PPFA; Dr. Vanessa Cullins, Vice President for External Medical Affairs for PPFA; and Deborah VanDerhei, National Director for the Consortium of Abortion Providers (CAPS) at PPFA.

“We’ve just been working with people who want particular tissues, like, you know, they want cardiac, or they want eyes, or they want neural,” says Dr. Westhoff to a prospective fetal organ buyer. “Certainly, everything we provide–oh, gonads! Oh my God, gonads. Everything we provide is fresh.” Westhoff continues, “Obviously, we would have the potential for a huge P.R. issue in doing this,” before offering to introduce the buyers to “national office abortion people” from Planned Parenthood.

Deborah VanDerhei is the National Director for CAPS, an influential committee within Planned Parenthood that drives abortion policy across the organization. VanDerhei refers to payments for fetal tissue as “donation for remuneration,” which carries the connotation of financial reward or benefit without regard for actual expenses. VanDerhei explains, “I have been talking to the executive director of the National Abortion Federation, we’re trying to figure this out as an industry, about how we’re going to manage remuneration, because the headlines would be a disaster.”


Making big money on fresh baby parts. Gotta keep it secret because it's illegal.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
I see nothing about "big money" in your cited material, only managing what money comes in with recognition that some people would jump on what they do and try to demonize them. Can you be specific about what in this quote is either secret or illegal?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
Well, there's this deceptive line where they try to change the meaning of what she said to fit their agenda:
quote:
VanDerhei refers to payments for fetal tissue as “donation for remuneration,” which carries the connotation of financial reward or benefit without regard for actual expenses.
Where she's talking about figuring out how to get paid for the labor done they try to spin it as pulling in money without regard to specific services provided.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Yeah, that's a howler. It "carries that connotation"? Says who? The denotation is covering expenses.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
I fully give that some people may mean profit by it, but it doesn't fit the context here, unless you want to impute that meaning on her words.

I mean, when you break it down, either it conforms to to other more direct assertions that they just cover costs with the charges, or for some reason it doesn't and she feels like it would be useful to send up a dog whistle here to someone that there is a profit margin while otherwise claiming that there isn't.

The latter case only makes sense if you've already concluded that they must be profiting and thus need to find ways to interpret her words to conform to that expectation, despite lack of any actual motivation to actually have tried to encode that meaning.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Yeah, that's a howler. It "carries that connotation"? Says who? The denotation is covering expenses.

Says who? The lady trying to get enough money out of the deal to buy a Lamborghini ?
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
OK, point taken: you're just trolling.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
It should be noted that G# has previously said that, no, he does not believe she was speaking seriously of her intent to purchase a Lamborghini. This is more a reminder to G# than anyone else.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
And now, in about 2 weeks, the radical Conservatives in Congress are talking about shutting down parts of the government over these unproven (and probably untrue) allegations. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I mean, when you break it down, either it conforms to to other more direct assertions that they just cover costs with the charges, or for some reason it doesn't and she feels like it would be useful to send up a dog whistle here to someone that there is a profit margin while otherwise claiming that there isn't.

There's definitely a profit margin. Fetal tissue is a waste product of a medical procedure, any marginal return on it is profit. However, it's an accounting matter as to whether you have sufficient direct variable costs plus any overhead you can properly attribute to it to sufficiently cover any such gains, or whether you have an incompetent accountant and can't manage to do so.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Fetal tissue is a waste product of a medical procedure, any marginal return on it is profit.
What's baffling to me is that you clearly have heard the term "direct variable cost," but then go on to suggest that they're fictional -- invented by creative accountants -- and not wholly unavoidable costs like, say, storage and shipping.

From an accounting perspective, categorizing any return on fetal tissue as profit before factoring in direct costs associated with that cost object would be highly improper.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I mean, when you break it down, either it conforms to to other more direct assertions that they just cover costs with the charges, or for some reason it doesn't and she feels like it would be useful to send up a dog whistle here to someone that there is a profit margin while otherwise claiming that there isn't.

There's definitely a profit margin. Fetal tissue is a waste product of a medical procedure, any marginal return on it is profit. However, it's an accounting matter as to whether you have sufficient direct variable costs plus any overhead you can properly attribute to it to sufficiently cover any such gains, or whether you have an incompetent accountant and can't manage to do so.
You're confusing revenue and profit. It's revenue, certainly, but it's only profit if it cannot be properly correlated to covering such costs; that's core to what profit is- net revenue in excess of costs of production. You can only get to calling it "profit" by conflating it with revenue and actively ignoring associated marginal costs, especially when the the ultimate bill is, as very explicitly stated many times over, assessed directly based on the marginal costs of providing the service.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
Says who? The lady trying to get enough money out of the deal to buy a Lamborghini ?
How many $75 donations does it take to buy one?
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
OK, point taken: you're just trolling.

No, not at all. Just because you can't defend it doesn't mean it's trolling. She clearly expected to make money, a lot of money, the kind of money that could be used to buy a very expensive car. Not that she intended to buy one, just that she intended to make enough off the deal to do it if she wanted too. Trying to focus on the car as if that was a literal purchase she intended to make is being intentionally misled.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
How many $75 donations does it take to buy one?
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Fetal tissue is a waste product of a medical procedure, any marginal return on it is profit.
What's baffling to me is that you clearly have heard the term "direct variable cost," but then go on to suggest that they're fictional -- invented by creative accountants -- and not wholly unavoidable costs like, say, storage and shipping.

From an accounting perspective, categorizing any return on fetal tissue as profit before factoring in direct costs associated with that cost object would be highly improper.

Because you misunderstand the accounting. Fetal tissue is a waste product of an abortion, it is generated without any cost, and will be generated no matter what.

The variable cost attribution comes from the process of preparing and shipping it, and the allocation of other costs comes from the legal, but inappropriate and misleading, attribution of overhead to the "product."
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
You're confusing revenue and profit. It's revenue, certainly, but it's only profit if it cannot be properly correlated to covering such costs; that's core to what profit is- net revenue in excess of costs of production. You can only get to calling it "profit" by conflating it with revenue and actively ignoring associated marginal costs, especially when the the ultimate bill is, as very explicitly stated many times over, assessed directly based on the marginal costs of providing the service.

I'm not confusing anything. I've already pointed out repeatedly the correct accounting treatment and the legality involved. It's still an accounting farce, and there is still no cost that they are required to incur.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
The legal, but inappropriate and misleading, attribution of overhead to the "product"
Do you believe that all direct costs are misleading, or only ones related to the reclamation of waste products?

I ask because my wife is actually a researcher who is making nitrogen fertilizer from wastewater, and the cost of their product and their service is derived explicitly from the direct costs; wastewater is, like fetal tissue, basically free. Are you saying that the costs inextricable from the production and transportation of that fertilizer are inappropriate and misleading?
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I ask because my wife is actually a researcher who is making nitrogen fertilizer from wastewater, and the cost of their product and their service is derived explicitly from the direct costs; wastewater is, like fetal tissue, basically free. Are you saying that the costs inextricable from the production and transportation of that fertilizer are inappropriate and misleading?

Overhead is by definition not a direct cost, do you understand what overhead is?

I've actually walked through why variable costs (which is what you are referring to with respect to your wife) are what should be used as the comparison. The issue with the allocation of overhead is that it can - legally - be used to cover any gap between the "price" paid and variable costs. The point of dispute on variable costs has always been about whether they have to incurred and billed back, or if they could be paid directly by the third party (thereby cleansing the tissue donation of any economic taint).
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
The point of dispute on variable costs has always been about whether they have to incurred and billed back, or if they could be paid directly by the third party (thereby cleansing the tissue donation of any economic taint).
Ah. When you say "always," you mean "always by me, in this thread." But now I understand your argument.

And, of course, it's a ridiculous argument, unless your absolute first priority is to make sure that no money at all is left over at the end of a given transaction. Which is sort of a stupid priority, IMO.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
If you want to say the only question that has to do with the legality/illegality is a "ridiculous argument" feel free. Donating the tissues is totally legal, selling them for profit is not.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Tom didn't write anything about overhead.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Except you're not actually posing a question. Because the question "are they charging a fair price for shipping" is unequivocally and unquestionably "yes." Every single investigation into that question comes up with a "yes."

What you are saying is that they can make the question moot by requiring people who want fetal tissue to jump through ridiculous and expensive hoops in an attempt to satisfy Republicans who aren't going to allow themselves to be satisfied in the first place. Which is stupid.

-------

Kate, all I can figure is that Seriati thinks that PP is spreading its general operating costs and facility expenses across what they're charging for fetal tissue shipments. He is actually a little fixated on the possibility, despite the fact that everything I've seen suggests otherwise.

[ September 22, 2015, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
What a tremendous waste of time and effort. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with whether a profit is being made or not. It is an attack on abortion. Planned Parenthood has always been a primary target of the Prolife crowd. The reason the GOP is raising such a stink about profit is because a number of them voted to make the donation of tissue legal and don't want that focused on by their constituents.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
You're confusing revenue and profit. It's revenue, certainly, but it's only profit if it cannot be properly correlated to covering such costs; that's core to what profit is- net revenue in excess of costs of production. You can only get to calling it "profit" by conflating it with revenue and actively ignoring associated marginal costs, especially when the the ultimate bill is, as very explicitly stated many times over, assessed directly based on the marginal costs of providing the service.

I'm not confusing anything. I've already pointed out repeatedly the correct accounting treatment and the legality involved. It's still an accounting farce, and there is still no cost that they are required to incur.
There are costs that they cannot help but to incur because the inherent to the process of preserving and handling the tissue instead of disposing of it. And there are costs that it's logistically far more reasonable for them to incur, such as hiring a transport service when needed. And this is reflected in the law itself which makes it clear that recouping such costs are reasonable, since the law makers writing it realized that these were practical allowances to make and that it would represent an undue burden to just thought he useless and far more costly hoop[s that you've proposed they should do just for the sake of fantasies of accounting.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

Kate, all I can figure is that Seriati thinks that PP is spreading its general operating costs and facility expenses across what they're charging for fetal tissue shipments. He is actually a little fixated on the possibility, despite the fact that everything I've seen suggests otherwise.

How can they do that and buy all the Lamborghinis? Is a Lamborghini an overhead cost?

[ September 22, 2015, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
The variable cost attribution comes from the process of preparing and shipping it, and the allocation of other costs comes from the legal, but inappropriate and misleading, attribution of overhead to the "product."
There would be nothing inappropriate or misleading about that, and what's more, if there are costs that it covers, then it's not profit. Profit is only revenue in excess of all relevant costs. If they're only coving marginal costs and not accounting for some fraction of static costs, then they're providing the service at a loss.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
What a tremendous waste of time and effort. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with whether a profit is being made or not. It is an attack on abortion. Planned Parenthood has always been a primary target of the Prolife crowd. The reason the GOP is raising such a stink about profit is because a number of them voted to make the donation of tissue legal and don't want that focused on by their constituents.

Of course it is. It exists to that Carly Fiorina et al can shout about non-existent videos and congress critters can proclaim their votes to defund PP.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
And so that Marco Rubio can talk about how women are "pushed" into having abortions so Planned Parenthood can sell the fetuses.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
How can they do that and buy all the Lamborghinis? Is a Lamborghini an overhead cost?
I did a little checking. If the full $75 goes into the Lamborghini slush fund they would only need between 1650 and 3500 tissue sales to get one. I assume that more than one person at PP has set their sights on that prize, so just multiple the number of abortions by whatever total number of L's you think have blinded them with its lights.
quote:
Of course it is. It exists to that Carly Fiorina et al can shout about non-existent videos and congress critters can proclaim their votes to defund PP.
When Carly was challenged on TV yesterday about whether she saw the alleged film or was only told by someone else that they had seen it, she insisted that she herself had watched it. She also said she would not talk about it any further to someone who hadn't also seen it for themselves. She's better at the game than I gave her credit for...
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Tom didn't write anything about overhead.

quote:
Kate, all I can figure is that Seriati thinks that PP is spreading its general operating costs and facility expenses across what they're charging for fetal tissue shipments. He is actually a little fixated on the possibility, despite the fact that everything I've seen suggests otherwise.
He responded to me when I was talking about overhead.

In fairness, I didn't "fixate" on the subject until you all challenged really basic statements that I made early on in the thread.
quote:
Except you're not actually posing a question. Because the question "are they charging a fair price for shipping" is unequivocally and unquestionably "yes." Every single investigation into that question comes up with a "yes."
We've been talking about this for a while, that was not evident when I first raised this issue. And in fact is only available information because some people did in fact investigate - which is what I said was warranted. It's also something that could easily have been addressed - to my satisfaction - by some rather easy disclosures by PP a long time ago.
quote:
What you are saying is that they can make the question moot by requiring people who want fetal tissue to jump through ridiculous and expensive hoops in an attempt to satisfy Republicans who aren't going to allow themselves to be satisfied in the first place. Which is stupid.
I didn't say that at all. I said if it's illegal to sell fetal tissue but not to donate it you have to have a mechanism to tell the two situations apart. It could be regulatory or it could be criminal. In either case, the state has an obligation to act on the base of tips and/or yellow or red flags.

You could always change the law and let them sell the tissues for profit, or create a safe harbor for the amount of the transactions.
quote:
There would be nothing inappropriate or misleading about that, and what's more, if there are costs that it covers, then it's not profit. Profit is only revenue in excess of all relevant costs. If they're only coving marginal costs and not accounting for some fraction of static costs, then they're providing the service at a loss.
That's not the case for a waste product, but you're mixing up service and product to get to this answer. As an accounting matter, anything more than the direct variable costs connected to a disposition of a waste product provides extra revenue to an organization that it is solely an accounting matter as to whether its labeled as profit or something else. Dollars are fungible.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
Of course it is. It exists to that Carly Fiorina et al can shout about non-existent videos and congress critters can proclaim their votes to defund PP.
When Carly was challenged on TV yesterday about whether she saw the alleged film or was only told by someone else that they had seen it, she insisted that she herself had watched it. She also said she would not talk about it any further to someone who hadn't also seen it for themselves. She's better at the game than I gave her credit for...
That really made me laugh.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Here's an update on Carly's abortion video:
quote:
The video that Carly Fiorina graphically described at the last Republican presidential debate, depicting a moving fetus on a table following an apparent abortion, was released online in its entirety Tuesday morning, according to Gregg Cunningham, the founder of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, who collected the footage.

Cunningham, an anti-abortion activist, declined to identify the date, location or authors of the video in an interview with TIME Monday night, saying his group makes agreements of confidentiality in an effort to acquire images of abortions. He also made no claim that the images shown in the video had anything to do with Planned Parenthood, the organization that Fiorina and others have targeted for federal defunding. “I am neither confirming or denying the affiliation of the clinic who did this abortion,” Cunningham said.

During the debate on Sept. 16, Fiorina denounced the images on videos that had been produced by a separate group, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP). “As regards [to] Planned Parenthood, anyone who has watched this videotape, I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes,” she said. “Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.”

No video released by the Center for Medical Progress showed the image Fiorina described, but one of the CMP videos does include a brief edited clip from the video Cunningham released on Tuesday, showing a fetus on a stainless steel background with its leg moving.

David Daleiden, who created the Center for Medical Progress videos, edited in the Cunningham footage to illustrate a story that he had been told on camera of a medical technician witnessing an abortion that resulted in an extracted fetus with moving legs and beating heart.

To recap, Carly's claims are bull****, but I am sure she won't back down.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
If nothing else, Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated that by far the most successful tactic they have is emphatically repeating a lie.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Politifact has checked Ben Carson on 10 recent claims. The score:
quote:
We’ve fact-checked Carson, a newcomer to the political scene, 10 times so far: one Pants on Fire, four Falses, three Mostly Falses, zero Mostly Trues and zero Trues.
Frankly, he's about the same is almost all of the others.

[ September 30, 2015, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
I wasn't going to bother, but your latest assertions rubbed me the wrong way. Accusing Republicans of lieing, when it's been widely reported that the videos were not in fact heavily edit or manipulated, and that means that the real liars were on the side claiming they were. So do you all intend to pretend that the big ole lie you guys kept citing was immaterial?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
when it's been widely reported that the videos were not in fact heavily edit or manipulated
It's been widely reported by dishonest media. The videos were heavily edited, the scenes described were not in the original videos released that were the topic of conversation at the time, and the scenes described are not actually of Planned Parenthood clinics. There is, in other words, nothing honest about them -- and Fiorina not only knows this, but knows she screwed up by confusing one video for another in her original speech. She also realizes that dishonest foot soldiers will go to bat for her if she just refuses to admit error, by saying that it's "widely reported" that up is down and black is white.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Actually, the people who perpetrated the videos of the supposed aborted fetus have admitted that it was a stillborn (miscarried) fetus and that it was not filmed at a Planned Parenthood Center. It was done to suggest how it would look if it were an aborted fetus that was still alive. Carly's comment that she heard them talking about how to keep it alive long enough to harvest the brain is not on the tape. The lies are too sordid to recount in full, but here is the group that collected and released the video admitting that it isn't what Carly says it is, and here is David Delieden admitting that the fetus pictured was from a miscarriage, not an abortion:
quote:
David Daleiden, the project lead Center for Medical Progress’ anti-Planned Parenthood campaign, admitted on Wednesday that an alleged fetus on a table that GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina described during a graphic anti-abortion rant was actually from a miscarriage.
Check your sources, Seriati. That, btw, is what Cecile Richards (the head of PP) told Chaffetz (the head of the House investigative committee) when he asserted he was displaying a graph taking from their (PP) own annual reports that turned out to be a bogus chart he took from a group called Americans United For Life.

The video of the stillborn fetus was used without permission by the couple whose fetus it was. They have decided not to sue, because they are strongly anti-abortion and don't want to stop the group that used it from promoting their agenda.

I'm *very* disappointed that you so willingly bought into the anti-PP narrative. By doing so you are emulating the behavior of the least trustworthy participants in this "debate". I hope you will correct your statement.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
I seem, so you're pretending now that you comments relate solely to the inclusion of the video of the stillborn fetus, which the producers have refused to confirm where the video was from.

Does that mean you completely retract your other claims about the videos being heavily edited? Or is this an area where your going to double down against apparent facts you dislike?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Seriati, I think it is now incumbent upon you to identify which videos you're talking about. There are at least four different sources, which certain idiots -- including presidential candidates -- are rather disingenuously conflating into a single discussion.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
It doesn't appear that Seriati is talking about the first five videos from the Center for Medical Progress. Those have been analyzed by three teams of experts, who found "that all of the videos analyzed -- even the supposedly "full," unedited footage the CMP released -- were missing large sections of time and misleadingly altered so that separate conversations appeared to take place in an uninterrupted take. Moreover, the forensic team found that the transcripts CMS released with the videos were frequently erroneous."

quote:
The videos show Planned Parenthood doctors discussing the donation of fetal tissue after abortions -- a legal practice. But the CMP edited the videos into episodes that make it look as though Planned Parenthood is selling fetal parts for profit and changing abortion methods to deliver intact specimens...

Simpson said his team of experts found that the subtitles in the videos do not correspond to the actual dialogue, and that the CMP may have simply invented parts of the conversation when the recordings were too low-quality to determine what was really being said. In one case, the video indicates that a technician said, "It's a baby." But those words cannot actually be heard in the video -- the segment consists of incomprehensible background chatter.

"In our view, CMP created the purported statement, 'It's a baby,' either through transcription error or intentional fabrication," Simpson wrote in the report.

While this report is not definitive (having been commissioned by Planned Parenthood), it certainly brings into doubt Seriati's statement that it has been "widely reported that the videos were not in fact heavily edit or manipulated," if he happens to be referring to these videos.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
In the incomprehensible background chatter, you can faintly hear President Obama's grandmother.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
BTW, Fenring, what do you think about the House is being run by Radical Conservatives?

241 votes to defund Planned Parenthood. And the worst part is, it wasn't just to take away a grant given to them. It was specifically to prevent Planned Parenthood from being paid for cancer screening and treatment, regular contraception, and STD testing and treatment, by preventing them from being able to charge for these things to Medicaid. Primarily for people at 150 percent below the poverty line.

All because of some accusations on some ginned-up videos that have never been confirmed.

Republicans are disgusting. [Mad]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
BTW, Fenring, what do you think about the House is being run by Radical Conservatives?

I don't like the way government is run at all, or the reasons people even think government should exist. Regarding the Republicans they seem to be against public health care, which would mean they put this topic under the general umbrella that government shouldn't be in the business of paying for private service out of other people's pockets. You can say what you want about the honesty of this kind of claim, but it seems to me roughly similar not to want to fund PP on the same grounds they don't want to fund health care in general. These points appear to at least be consistent, whether or not they are sensible.

I personally sympathize with pro-life people who don't want to be specifically contributing to abortion, but then again I can hardly imagine how they're ok funding the military industrial complex in the same breath.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Well, Fenring, I was specifically referring to how they decided to defund PP because of the ginned-up videos (notice the House didn't try to cut off all Medicaid payments, just those to PP [Smile] ), but I guess you have to start somewhere.

It still shows that the House Representatives are acting like a kangaroo court. [Frown]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Regarding the Republicans they seem to be against public health care, which would mean they put this topic under the general umbrella that government shouldn't be in the business of paying for private service...
Except that this isn't the rationale they're putting forward. No one is saying "cut off payments to Planned Parenthood because we shouldn't be paying for medical care to the poor."
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
GOP Probe Into Planned Parenthood Funding Comes Up Empty

quote:
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Thursday that the GOP's investigation into Planned Parenthood's use of federal funds hasn't turned up anything.

"Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes. Was there any wrongdoing? I didn't find any," he said during a Judiciary Committee hearing on the family planning provider.

quote:
Chaffetz said Thursday that he still supports digging into Planned Parenthood's activities, even if they're using their money appropriately.

"I think there will continue to be investigations," he said.

Of course there will.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
No need to wait for the investigation to conclude is there? Of course not. The vote to create the panel to investigate was only 2 days ago. Gotta be done by now!
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
You're right, Rafi. No need to wait. Republicans don't need facts to support their conclusions. Kangaroo courts never do. They have (self-)righteousness on their side!

After all, that's why they've all ready voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Investigation is unnecessary. They know the verdict. They don't need no stinking facts. [Mad]
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
We have most of the facts, the videos (unedited and complete)are pretty damning.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
They really aren't.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
They aren't complete or damning, but they are videos, which is all you need.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
They aren't unedited, either. *laugh*
I'm deeply curious which "facts" G# thinks are damning.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
They really aren't.

You really need to watch them, not just take PP's press release.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
I'm watching The Manchurian Candidate. I can't believe how close they came!!!!
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Rafi, which parts of the videos do you think are "damning?" Or, for that matter, contain "facts?"
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
You really need to watch them, not just take PP's press release.
How about taking Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who said:

quote:
“Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes,” Chaffetz said during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee meeting. “Was there any wrongdoing? I didn’t find any.”
But, of course, he's only the Republican committee chairman, so what'd he know? [Wink]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Now PP has said they will refuse compensation for their costs for tissue donations. Gohmert won't be fazed by that, as he recently claimed that PP exists almost solely for the purpose of performing abortions, and he threw in a connection to Benghazi while he was at it. How do you reason or argue with people like that? The answer is, well, he's a Republican.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
You really need to watch them, not just take PP's press release.
How about taking Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who said:

quote:
“Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes,” Chaffetz said during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee meeting. “Was there any wrongdoing? I didn’t find any.”
But, of course, he's only the Republican committee chairman, so what'd he know? [Wink]

Sorry, but:
quote:
Coalfire Systems, a highly accredited forensic analysis and cybersecurity company that does work for Fortune 500 companies, issued a report Monday which found that 10 full-footage videos the Center for Medical Progress recorded while undercover at Planned Parenthood facilities and related locations “are authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or editing.”

“This conclusion is supported by the consistency of the video file date and time stamps, the video timecode, as well as the folder and file naming scheme,” the report states. “The uniformity between the footage from Investigator 1’s camera and Investigator 2’s camera also support the evidence that the video recordings are authentic.” The report also confirms that “edits made to the Full Footage videos [for the shorter YouTube videos] were applied to eliminate non-pertinent footage, such as restroom breaks, meals, and other similar periods lacking pertinent conversation.”

“The Coalfire forensic analysis removes any doubt that the full length undercover videos released by the Center for Medical Progress are authentic and have not been manipulated,” said ADF Senior Counsel Casey Mattox. “Analysts scrutinized every second of video recorded during the investigation released by CMP to date and found only bathroom breaks and other non-pertinent footage had been removed. Planned Parenthood can no longer hide behind a smokescreen of false accusations and should now answer for what appears to be the very real crimes revealed by the CMP investigation.”


 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Question: what "very real crimes" are being alleged, here?

I would be very surprised if you could locate one.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Now PP has said they will refuse compensation for their costs for tissue donations. Gohmert won't be fazed by that, as he recently claimed that PP exists almost solely for the purpose of performing abortions, and he threw in a connection to Benghazi while he was at it. How do you reason or argue with people like that? The answer is, well, he's a Republican.

Also note that only Oregon And California locations were asking for expense reimbursements. And beyond that, only Washington locations were also even doing tissue donations, so every other state that used the videos as a pretext to launch investigations was doing so under false pretenses.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
"Planned Parenthood can no longer hide behind a smokescreen of false accusations and should now answer for what appears to be the very real crimes revealed by the CMP investigation."
Apparently, appearances are deceiving.

quote:
“Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes,” Chaffetz said during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee meeting. “Was there any wrongdoing? I didn’t find any.”
Who to believe? The one who said there appeared to be wrong-doing, or the one who said he looked into it and found none. Who to believe?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Hey, Rafi, check this out:
quote:
The analysis was by Fusion GPS, a Washington-based research and corporate intelligence company, and its co-founder Glenn Simpson, a former investigative reporter for The Wall Street Journal.

The videos, recorded by two activists posing as representatives of a biotechnology firm procuring tissue for researchers and universities, continue to be released online about once a week. One of the activists, David Daleiden of California, told The New York Times last month that his “thousands of hours of videotape” was enough to release videos into the fall. That will coincide with Congress’s final budget debate, and the videos have stoked growing Republican threats of a government shutdown unless Planned Parenthood is stripped of about $500 million it gets annually, mostly to care for low-income Medicaid patients. By law, public funds cannot pay for abortions.

The analysis commissioned by Planned Parenthood covers the first four videos and transcripts from the Center for Medical Progress, which were recorded in California, Colorado and Texas. Several have been released since with footage repeated from earlier videos, though the most recent ones focus not on Planned Parenthood but on a company, StemExpress, that procures fetal and human tissue globally for research.

The reviewers looked both at edited videos that are about eight minutes to 15 minutes long and at what Mr. Daleiden said were full-length recordings, some more than two hours long, that he released simultaneously.

A transcription service was hired to transcribe the videos, without being told that Planned Parenthood was the client, to compare with transcripts publicized by the anti-abortion group. That comparison, the analysis said, showed “substantive omissions” in the group’s version. Mr. Simpson was assisted in the analysis by several others, including a video forensics expert, Grant Fredericks, and a television producer, Scott Goldie.

According to the investigation, the reviewers could not determine “the extent to which C.M.P.’s undisclosed edits and cuts distort the meaning of the encounters the videos purport to document.”

But, it said, “the manipulation of the videos does mean they have no evidentiary value in a legal context and cannot be relied upon for any official inquiries” unless C.M.P. provides investigators with its original material, and that material is independently authenticated as unaltered.

For example, Mr. Fredericks said recordings in Houston and Denver were each missing about 30 minutes of video, judging from time stamps and frame counters on the recordings.

The analysis also supported Planned Parenthood’s objection to two allegations that have elicited some of the most outrage from anti-abortion forces, disputing that Planned Parenthood staffers at one point say of fetal remains, “It’s a baby,” and in a second instance, “Another boy.”


 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Planned Parenthood shooting suspect told police: ‘No more baby parts
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Kate, for years here I have called this sort of thing (lying and twisting facts (ed the manipulated video) to inspire hate and fear that is reasonably likely to inspire violence) as BLOOD LIBEL. Solicitation of terrorism. You with me, Kate?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
I don't know. But there are consequences. There should be accountability.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
So shouldn't we be calling this a case of religious terrorism?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Good luck proving direct causation then
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Wayward, only if one is a fact-proof grave dancer.

Is there evidence that religion was a significant motivation?

BTW, "Islamist" or even Islamic terrorism does not necessarily impute I'll to the RELIGION of Islam, since Islam bills itself as something more, is broader than a mere religion. It is, IMHO, the nonreligious or extra religious aspects of Islam that cause most problems.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
I'm sure the motivation was 95% bat**** crazy.

But, I think it's mainly religion that convinces people that abortion is equivalent to infanticide.

I don't think it was an act of "religious terrorism", but I do think that those who insist on calling fetuses "babies" should cede that part of abortion's semantic battlefield.

(This is not really an effort to discern or defend whatever point WS was making.)
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
the characterization of fetuses as babies does not go back to the origin of any particular religion, SF. It coincides with growing understanding and visualization of fetal development. As pictures became available, sympathy grew.

What you CAN credit Christianity for is the law and sentiment against infanticide in the first place. Where Christians first spread, infanticide, not abortion, invariably became illegal.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Sci-Do, given that abortion rights in America are founded on the presumption that a fetus is not a "person", I think it's unreasonable for you to expect pro lifers to cede the only battle where they have a clear advantage. Not to mention being technically accurate. Under today's technology a fetus is essentially an unborn baby.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
I believe that abortion rights in American are founded on the presumption that woman are people. People who have a right to sovereignty over their own bodies.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Pete, I'm pretty sure the scientific nomenclature of "fetus" is applied before it's viable outside the womb, even with modern tech. The viability argument strikes me as the best justification for "unborn baby." Though I'm not sure it'd be accurate at the earliest potential date for viability outside the mother. But I'm going to stop before I drown in semantics.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I believe that abortion rights in American are founded on the presumption that woman are people. People who have a right to sovereignty over their own bodies.

Why should this fact preclude also asserting that unborn humans are people too? The fact of conflicting rights doesn't mean the rights of one party must be assumed to not exist. It would be sufficient for a pro-abortion position to argue that a woman's right to control her own body is paramount, without additionally having to insist that unborn humans are not people (i.e. are not babies) and have no rights.

But of course admitting the possibility of this interpretation naturally opens the door to people agreeing with the basic facts but disagreeing about whose rights matter more. And that's the real issue. It's not whether or not a woman has the right to control what happens to her body. It's whether this right overrides the alleged rights of the unborn human.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Ah, so we hold pro lifers to strict scientific usage, despite centuries of "unborn baby" being used in contexts not relating to abortion?

You never looked at your pregnant wife and said something about the "baby" growing inside her?

Really, Sci-fi?

Can I force Pyr to stop using unscientific usages of the word "race"?

I respectfully submit that intellectual dishonesty and doublethink is not a reliable way of securing our fundamental constitutional rights.

[ November 30, 2015, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
what I mean by that is that you will get more mileage for abortion rights by focusing on a woman's autonomy over her own body, rather than dehumanizing the fetus. dehumanization by class in order to justify homicide has a very bad history with the human race.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
I submit no one deserves to be subject to the extremes of my inner proscriptivist.

Doesn't "dehumanization by class" pre-suppose the fetus is a person or a non-technical definition of human?

[ November 30, 2015, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
You are mis-attributing a bit I think, Pete.

quote:
I respectfully submit that intellectual dishonesty and doublethink is not a reliable way of securing our fundamental constitutional rights.
No argument with this concept, but it goes both ways. Describing every abortion as the killing of an unborn baby is an attempt to equate the removal of a clump of cells in the very early stages of pregnancy with destroying a full term neonate. I think that is a harmful and false equivalency. Note that the mainstream of the pro-life side already concedes limitations on abortion later in the pregnancy when the comparison to an infant is more viable.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
what I mean by that is that you will get more mileage for abortion rights by focusing on a woman's autonomy over her own body, rather than dehumanizing the fetus. dehumanization by class in order to justify homicide has a very bad history with the human race.

I also agree that this is a better approach and ultimately the best reason that abortion should be legal. However, it doesn't align to most people's positions. Some people take the position that a blastocyst is a baby and not subject to that autonomy. Others take the position that this autonomy should be limited in late term pregnancy with few exceptions. So, practically speaking, nobody think this is THE issue.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
You are mis-attributing a bit I think, Pete.

quote:
I respectfully submit that intellectual dishonesty and doublethink is not a reliable way of securing our fundamental constitutional rights.
No argument with this concept, but it goes both ways. Describing every abortion as the killing of an unborn baby is an attempt to equate the removal of a clump of cells in the very early stages of pregnancy with destroying a full term neonate.
Well said and agreed. You have seen me ridicule those who call the morning after pill a form of abortion and I support RU 486 sale.

A fetus has the same brainwave pattern as a seven year old child. An embryo does not.

[ November 30, 2015, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
NH, what is your word "person",in this context other than a positivist construct to justify dividing living thinking human beings into persons and unpersona?. The word baby, and the description of a fetus as an "unborn child" long predate the mincing and artificial distinction of "personhood."

Do your question about presumptions is ads backwards. Based on presumptions that walk in the tradition of Dredd Scott. The undersigned of unborn babies (by which I mean viable fetuses) is ultimately an argument that can only win at gunpoint.

[ November 30, 2015, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
I think NH said "viable outside the womb". I don't see where he talked about brainwaves.

But I actually learned something today, about 8 weeks is when the term fetus is applied, once a rudimentary nervous system forms.

According to CDC, 62% of abortions were performed prior to the 8 week mark, and were therefore embryos?

Language is funny, and so is usage. Unborn baby is obviously provocative in terms of debate about abortion, but fitting with most non-abortion usage. If someone miscarries, we usually say "She lost the baby" and you'd probably get your head knocked off if you said "Sorry about your fetus/embryo" - regardless of the trimester.

[ November 30, 2015, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: The Drake ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
10-11 weeks, I think
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Note that the mainstream of the pro-life side already concedes limitations on abortion later in the pregnancy when the comparison to an infant is more viable.
That is obviously not true.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
No matter what semantic games are played with this, the end result of abortion is ending a human life. The whole point of an abortion is to make sure a human is gone. .
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
No.

Termination of a Blastocyst terminates human life but does not terminate A human life.

Spilling a drop of blood onto a stove top likewise terminates human life. But not A human life.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
THe point of abortion is to end a pregnancy and give a woman basic control of her body and reproduction. If it makes it impossible for a developing life to continue, that's incidental (in many cases, especially late term situations, the life is no longer developing anyway, and part of the point of the abortion is to remove the dead body before it becomes necrotic)

Rafi's comment confuses the point of the procedure with the method which must be used to accomplish that goal. The method is not the point; the goals, health and bodily autonomy, are what make up the point.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"THe point of abortion is to end a pregnancy and give a woman basic control of her body and reproduction"

Please be more articulate. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I hope you meant the point of abortion RIGHTS. rather than the point of abortion.

Most abortion is spontaneous and has no "point."

Many non clinical abortions are carried out forcefully without the mother's consent and often without consideration for her life or health. Beating a woman into abortion, an old pimp trick, is alive and well across the world and if you think you don't know a woman this has happened to, you probably just aren't the listening type. Wives, daughters, girlfriends and Chinese citizens are forced or bulliedinto clinical abortion or beaten into miscarriage for which the scientific name is abortion. Mrs Ceacescu forced her son's girlfriend to abort because Mrs Ceacescu felt she was not ready to be a grandmother. Winnie Mandela had a 16 year old beaten into miscarriage because her 14 year old **** toy was the reputed father.

I understand that th PC thing to do is paint a rosy picture but one can make a strong defense for a woman's fundamental constitutional rights without being a dullard or liar.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Incidentally, I don't recall anyone calling Godfather II a pro life screed, and yet there the story's sympathetic heroine gets an abortion specifically in order to shock and horrify her husband into granting her a divorce. Not the "point" you described, and not far fetched either.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Most abortion is spontaneous and has no "point."
And is not relevant to the context of the current conversation.

quote:
Many non clinical abortions are carried out forcefully without the mother's consent and often without consideration for her life or health.
And is not relevant to the context of the current conversation.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
THe point of abortion is to end a pregnancy and give a woman basic control of her body and reproduction. If it makes it impossible for a developing life to continue, that's incidental (in many cases, especially late term situations, the life is no longer developing anyway, and part of the point of the abortion is to remove the dead body before it becomes necrotic)

Rafi's comment confuses the point of the procedure with the method which must be used to accomplish that goal. The method is not the point; the goals, health and bodily autonomy, are what make up the point.

The doublethink here is so entrenched that this position is logically unassailable. I will note that as someone who is pro-choice this position is wholly offensive to me on several grounds.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
" not relevant to the context of the current conversation."

Or wasn't, until you started blathering about "the whole point of ABORTION"

The point is not that "every time a fetus dies, a woman gets her rights."

Abortion has no more of a point than venereal disease. The issue of this thread is a woman's sovereignty over her body. When you frame the issue on abortion generally and say crap that is obviously false, you hand the victory to pro lifers who can dismiss you as "pro abortion.". Since after all you just said that abortion itself had a good point.

Think about how you frame things. Women's fundamental constitutional rights are at stake here. I used to think abortion rights were secure in America, but I never expected lefty smugness to create this sort of horiffic carelessness. It's as if you wanted to lose the battle.

[ November 30, 2015, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
No.

Termination of a Blastocyst terminates human life but does not terminate A human life.

Spilling a drop of blood onto a stove top likewise terminates human life. But not A human life.

Ridiculous.

If you don't have a abortion, a person lives. Get one, someone does not live. The end result of abortion is that a person does not exist. Play semantic games all you want but the result will always be the same.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Or wasn't, until you started blathering about "the whole point of ABORTION"
That was Rafi, not me. I replied to him in the context of the abortion services that provides as part of their overall mission to serve reproductive health needs, since that's what we're talking about here, not any of the derailments you introduced.

quote:
The point is not that "every time a fetus dies, a woman gets her rights."
Indeed. That fits what I actually said very well when I pointed out that abortion doesn't even always involved fetal death, just a controlled end to pregnancy without a live birth.

And even taking the incorrect first portion of what you said for granted, the second should be "exercises her rights" not "gets".

quote:
Abortion has no more of a point than venereal disease.
No, a clinical abortion as provided by PP or a similar provider has a point- that point is to terminate a pregnancy; to allow a woman full choice in deciding how to manage her body and her health. Fetal death is a common and unavoidable consequence of it. But it is not the point or goal of providers offering the service.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
If you don't have a abortion, a person lives. Get one, someone does not live. The end result of abortion is that a person does not exist. Play semantic games all you want but the result will always be the same.

Or a person dies, if dead, necrotic tissue is forced to remain in their body for months.

At least you've backed away from the grossly inaccurate assertion that it's "the point" and apparently conceded that fetal death just an incidental result.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
what I mean by that is that you will get more mileage for abortion rights by focusing on a woman's autonomy over her own body, rather than dehumanizing the fetus. dehumanization by class in order to justify homicide has a very bad history with the human race.

Not true Pete. There's no way you'll get more mileage from a logical argument that requires people wanting to preserve abortion rights to admit that they are killing people to do so, than you'll get from allowing them the mental coverage that they are not killing real people.
quote:
Termination of a Blastocyst terminates human life but does not terminate A human life.
Based on what logic? You acknowledge that this is just an opinion correct? Unless we're talking the 80's The Thing (from outerspace) I'm not aware of a world where your spilled drop of blood has a potential to develop into a new human being.

You're just playing a definitional game here.
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
No argument with this concept, but it goes both ways. Describing every abortion as the killing of an unborn baby is an attempt to equate the removal of a clump of cells in the very early stages of pregnancy with destroying a full term neonate. I think that is a harmful and false equivalency. Note that the mainstream of the pro-life side already concedes limitations on abortion later in the pregnancy when the comparison to an infant is more viable.

Not sure it's an attempt to equate, rather than a simple statement of belief. Pete is correct, that one could still believe in abortion rights and accept that even a clump of cells is a person.

But I think your implication is wrong, people don't hold this position as a tactic. It would be an odd cynical duck that doesn't have a problem with aborting a clump of cells but equates a full term fetus with the clump of cells to restrict that abortion anyway. They make the argument because they believe aborting the cells is itself wrong.

I may be the exception, but I pretty much do hold as Pete suggests, I think the clump of cells is a person with rights, but that those rights cannot outweigh the rights of the mother to control her own body. As I said before, at viability there is no longer a conflict and abortion should no longer be legal. I even think when we get to a future where we can remove and tank grow a baby abortion should be outlawed. I look forward to the day, when the state takes the baby and forces both the mother and father to pay child support to bring back balance in how we treat the responsibility issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrotolin:
No, a clinical abortion as provided by PP or a similar provider has a point- that point is to terminate a pregnancy; to allow a woman full choice in deciding how to manage her body and her health. Fetal death is a common and unavoidable consequence of it. But it is not the point or goal of providers offering the service.

I completely disagree with this statement, and think it's actually false. By implication, abortion providers should be willing to remove the fetus alive if death is not the point, and they clearly are not so willing. There's no mistake here, a live underdeveloped child is not an acceptable result of an abortion and hence death is a point.

Removing a dead fetus, is not to my knowledge controversial for anyone, and as you seem to enjoy pointing out to Pete, completely irrelevant to the thread.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Unless we're talking the 80's The Thing (from outerspace) I'm not aware of a world where your spilled drop of blood has a potential to develop into a new human being.
That's irrelevant to his point. Otherwise you have to hold people accountable for every unused sperm and egg cell, and every embryo discarded after an IV fertilization process. Heck, with more advances in cloning technology, then any cell with a readable set of DNA becomes a potential human life.

quote:
By implication, abortion providers should be willing to remove the fetus alive if death is not the point, and they clearly are not so willing.
They are not only willing to, but legally required to where the fetus is independently viable and doing so would not increase the risk of the procedure. That's a nice example of blatantly false propaganda that you've tried to provide as factual evidence, though.

quote:
Removing a dead fetus, is not to my knowledge controversial for anyone, and as you seem to enjoy pointing out to Pete, completely irrelevant to the thread.
Except that bans on abortion would, de fact, ban doing it, and of course the point wasn't that they're controversial but rather that they demonstrate that the life of the fetus is incidental to the process.

quote:
I even think when we get to a future where we can remove and tank grow a baby abortion should be outlawed. I look forward to the day, when the state takes the baby and forces both the mother and father to pay child support to bring back balance in how we treat the responsibility issue.
If the state is going to require such extraction, then the state must also take full responsibility in reflection that it is the one that asserts that it is taking that child as its own. That's a horrific violation of individual rights that you're proposing, for apparently, little reason other than to impose a moralistic punishment on people not behaving the way you want them to.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
if you don't know why I said what I said, either educate yourself or simply ask me. Don't toss around brainless accusations.

This is not some stupid definition game..

Remember Solomon's choice? Cut a baby in half and the baby dies. Cut a blastocyst in half, and it can grow into two Blastocysts. Put a blastocyst into a wound and it will become the sort of cells that fill in the gap. Like stem cells.

Stick two half-blastocyst together and they can inplant as a single human being, albeit a chimera composed of two different genetic identities.

Go read up on stem cell research. Focus on articles that do not mention abortion because the prolifers and prochoicers collude to dupe the public on this topic. A blastocyst is very much human life without being "a" human life.

Learn a little biology before you accuse me of dissembling on this topic again. I taught university Bioethics and with SB gone am probably the best educated here in that field, which is a sad thing.

[ December 01, 2015, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
But I think your implication is wrong, people don't hold this position as a tactic. It would be an odd cynical duck that doesn't have a problem with aborting a clump of cells but equates a full term fetus with the clump of cells to restrict that abortion anyway. They make the argument because they believe aborting the cells is itself wrong.
I think you're crazy if you believe that pro-life messaging doesn't use word choice as a tactic. Next you're going to tell me that no politicians exploit the issue for political reasons.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Not true Pete. There's no way you'll get more mileage from a logical argument that requires people wanting to preserve abortion rights to admit that they are killing people to do so, than you'll get from allowing them the mental coverage that they are not killing real people. "

I meant on Ornery, where people are somewhat more intelligent and less brainwashed. My arguments actually have convinced two pro lifers on this forum over the years. Pyr's argument only works on the brainwashed. On people willing to snuff out their conscience with a magic word, because an authority figure says it's OK to kill.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Pyr is correct that ABORTION PROVIDERS refer to the removal of a dead fetus as a type of "abortion" but this is not scientific usage. In the biological parlance, the operation would be called removal of a spontaneously aborted fetus. Obviously removal isn't abortion or else Cesareans would be abortion. It's typical hypocrisy for this debate to demand that fetus sympathists stop saying "baby" while parroting the antiscientific jabber that the industry used to blur the issue.


"Except that bans on abortion would, de fact, ban doing it, "

The most commonly proposed "ban on abortion" (and referred to as such by planned parenthood) is simply to remove the abortion EXCEPTION from the MURDER statute.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Some of us are OK with "refusing to facilitate life" and view that differently than "killing". Is self defense still killing someone? Yes, but it's not the same as murder.


I'd like it if Seriati was correct and that a logical argument was enough. I think even here on Ornery, where people are somewhat more intelligent and less brainwashed, we can admit that logic is not enough. This is an emotional issue and a politically potent issue. Logic is rarely enough when a topic can be leveraged for votes.

As soon as you concede that you are "killing" or "murdering" then you are thrust into the emotional side which favors one political party in particular. Logic takes a back seat. You are KILLING a defenseless CHILD! There is no excuse!

So call it dishonest if you want, but attempting to contain the issue with logic and using language coldly stripped of emotion is necessary still. We are not (not enough or often enough at least) creatures of logic.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
I meant on Ornery, where people are somewhat more intelligent and less brainwashed. My arguments actually have convinced two pro lifers on this forum over the years. Pyr's argument only works on the brainwashed. On people willing to snuff out their conscience with a magic word, because an authority figure says it's OK to kill.
Wow, it only took you two sentences to prove your own strange way of thinking only works in your own bubble chamber. Does it hurt to pat yourself on the back that hard while kicking someone else in the stomach at the same time?

More soberly, you're demonstrating why Ornery has almost entirely lost its aura of authenticity and interest in open dialogue.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"As soon as you concede that you are "killing" or "murdering" then you are thrust into the emotional side which favors one political party in particular"

I disagree with your placing killing as equivalent to murder. An educated person should recognise that living cells are killed all the time. We kill plants and animals for consumption.

The word kill can even be used AGAINST the ignorant prolifers who insist that medical use of stem cells is "murder" because the stem cells DON'T EVEN DIE. They simply grow into a living part rather than a living creature.

To the extent that euphemism obscure the truth, they do more harm than good.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I disagree with your seeming assumption of what "an education person should recognize" or maybe, an assumption about the number of "educated persons" and how they are relevant to politics.

When you partake of a duel of logic against a person fighting from a foundation of passionate emotion, the result tends to be hate, contempt, fear or loathing. They use your "know it all attitude" as further evidence you are attempting to control others. It essentially becomes fuel for their cause not a counter to it.

Do you think that the general public on the pro life side of the debate can be persuaded to debate the issue from a foundation of logical opposition towards abortion. If so, what would encourage that to come about?

Or, if there are those who believe it's already the case and I'm being too partisan, spell it out for me.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
I meant on Ornery, where people are somewhat more intelligent and less brainwashed. My arguments actually have convinced two pro lifers on this forum over the years. Pyr's argument only works on the brainwashed. On people willing to snuff out their conscience with a magic word, because an authority figure says it's OK to kill.
Wow, it only took you two sentences to prove your own strange way of thinking only works in your own bubble chamber. *[snip Al's typical motive reading and smug personal attacks*].
I am sorry if in all your advanced years Ornery is the only place you have found educated and free thinking discursants

I meant Ornery specifically because this is the place Pyr was making the arguments that presumed that his listeners were brainwashed buffoons who can flip off their brain and conscience like Milgram Experiment subjects when an authority figure says "unperson"

It's foolish for you to presume I meant that Ornery is the only place that people have thinking caps. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming your response was not intentionally obtuse.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Rather, it was acute. Ornery *used* to be a debate and discussion forum. In my advancing years I wish it were more like that.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
DW, with honest respect, I disagree that we disagree. [Smile]

I think that if you were to correctly restate what I said every educated person should know, that you would find yourself in agreement.

As to the relevance of education to politics, I have no position, so I cannot disagree with you there. I HOPE educated persons can make political debate more honest and informed. I THINK we have a moral duty to try. Do you disagree?
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I wish for the same. I guess that's sort of like hope with a dash of depression?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I'll also say that I regard the obvious falsity of the "personhood" brainwashing as the most proximate cause for most antichoice terrorism. Rather than "religion" being the cause of the pro life movement, it has simply provided a tradition by which a person can dissent from legal fatwas on personhood. Pro abortion personhood rhetoric drives many persons of conscience to church. Just as occurred with slavery 150 years ago. Deprived of any moral authority in their nihilistic government, many Americans turn to a god that they otherwise would never have considered believing in.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I wish for the same. I guess that's sort of like hope with a dash of depression?

I hear you, Brother.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Rather, it was acute. Ornery *used* to be a debate and discussion forum. In my advancing years I wish it were more like that.

Since dec 2000 when I created my Pete account, I never spent a month on Ornery without hearing someone bemoaning the good old days when there was better discussion. As I remember, 2003 was a particularly good year for nostalgia. Whole threads dedicated to the folks that had left, and the wonderful discussions we used to know. You 2015 nostalgics have nothing on the 2003 ones, sonny.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
There was even a period of time in which the hypernostalgics would write big hyperventilating threads about how they were leaving Ornery, and why, and who was to blame, and then they would come back two days later under a different avatar and resume their old arguments.

Methinks the good old days weren't always good. But I do miss a lot of those we have lost. Best ones drifted away without funfair.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"So call it dishonest if you want, but attempting to contain the issue with logic and using language coldly stripped of emotion is necessary still. "

Although I regard the Civil War as terrible, I am not convinced that one could have formulated an effective antislavery argument using language "coldly stripped of emotion." Also, the anti personhood argument is inherently violent. To fail to recognize that would feel wrong.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
Although I regard the Civil War as terrible, I am not convinced that one could have formulated an effective antislavery argument using language "coldly stripped of emotion."
You are right.

There are people who are swayed more by logic and people who are swayed more by emotions. Those more swayed by emotion are (IMO) more inclined to focus narrowly and ignore or dismiss long term repercussions or collateral damage.

Abortion is about weighing two unjust results. A woman forced to carry a child to term and all the physical and emotional distress that entails; and an a life ended before it's even drawn a breath. Neither is "acceptable" morally.

So we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils. Shockingly, which is MORE evil is not unanimously agreed upon.

The pro-life side, correctly (or instinctively?) leverages the emotional argument. This is death! The top of the pile of "bad things" we are talking about. You don't need to think this through or understand the big picture. This is a sweet innocent baby being ended by a selfish mother who could have chosen not to have sex in the first place.

The Pro-choice side has already lost the morality fight. As awful as being condemned to being an unwilling incubation chamber and subjected to all the physical and psychological changes that entails, it is now measured against death. Worse yet, if you view it as the child inflicting these things on the mother, without malice or intent at all and balance that that against what the woman wants to do to the child, you've lost again.

So how do you summon up moral indignation and righteous fury for the woman against a fetus? Who is the outlet for that emotional focus? I don't see how there can be one. A woman should have freedom! And this potential baby is an oppressor? No, it's the government's opposition to my ability to make... You've stopped listening haven't you?

So you are right, stripping emotion out of anti-slavery arguments wouldn't have been prudent. You likely COULD do so, but it is much easier to get someone to realize they should be just and moral when the flip side is just inconvenience and loss of profit. It takes dehumanizing and emotional detatchment to maintain slavery. An emotional plea works to counter that. This is why the pro-life movement is employing it here.

I don't fault them that tactic. I fault them for being dishonest about the sacrifices they are demanding of the women they wish to refuse abortions to. They are morally content with possibly ruining one or more lives to save a life. It shouldn't be an easy choice.

Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. It's about acknowledging there is a painful and serious choice that has lasting repercussions.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. "

I agree. I consider you, fenring, myself, and many others pro choice. Otoh those that justify abortion by dehumanizing the fetus with the "personhood" shibboleth are pro abortion. They may or may not also be pro choice, depending on whether they think a woman has the right to decline an abortion. No one who thinks that parents courts and guardians should be able to compel a woman to abort, should be called "pro choice" among educated discursants

[ December 01, 2015, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I think most of them are not "pro-abortion" but one of two things Pete.

1. They are not honest enough with themselves to realize they ARE willing to choose the woman's right to choose if it means ending a life.

2. They have no faith that the right to choose can survive an honest (as I see it) statement of that the choice is in the current political climate.

I don't believe there is a statistically relevant amount of people who are conspiring to keep population down by being pro-abortion or those who want to promote the issue just to spit in the face of the religious moralists out there.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
3. The personhood argument is sometimes valid (such as very early term)
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
To me, the personhood argument is meaningless. I understand its validity from a legal justification standpoint though.

A pregnancy is viable or not. The time in that pregnancy doesn't enter into it for me. But I'm not charged with drafting law which explains WHY my decision is acceptable and should be respected by others. THAT is where the personhood argument comes into play.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"
I don't believe there is a statistically relevant amount of people who are conspiring to keep population down by being pro-abortion or those who want to promote the issue just to spit in the face of the religious moralists out there.,"

If you mean statistically as part of the population, then I agree. But as part of the Supreme Court, 1/9,=11.11%, Justice Stephens was "statistically relevant" in a matter of speaking.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
3. The personhood argument is sometimes valid (such as very early term)

I'd rather speak of arguably measurable attributes such as sentience, than resort to quasi religious legal fictions to dehumanize by class.

Absence of recognizable human brain waves doesn't single out a class of humans for unpersoning. It rather creates the protected class, rather than creating exclusions. We say the law protects humans with human brainwave patterns. That says when abortion cannot be done without restriction other that mother's request. And also when one can pull the plug.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
if you don't know why I said what I said, either educate yourself or simply ask me. Don't toss around brainless accusations.

This is not some stupid definition game..

***

Learn a little biology before you accuse me of dissembling on this topic again. I taught university Bioethics and with SB gone am probably the best educated here in that field, which is a sad thing.

I think that I wrote that too aggressive, apologies. However, I don't think it necessarily follows that because a Blastocyst can be manipulated that its not a human life. Biology is not necessarily a convincing argument against philosophy, which is what I meant by asserting that it was your opinion (note, I didn't say it was unjustified).

Maybe we could highlight it with another example, is Caitlin Jenner a man or a woman?
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
That's irrelevant to his point. Otherwise you have to hold people accountable for every unused sperm and egg cell, and every embryo discarded after an IV fertilization process. Heck, with more advances in cloning technology, then any cell with a readable set of DNA becomes a potential human life.

No, I said blood was different, so would be sperm, unfertilized eggs and DNA, none of which could ever develop into a new human being without additional interference.

Discarded embryos are certainly a trickier issue. I'm sure you are not surprised that opinions vary on them.
quote:
quote:
By implication, abortion providers should be willing to remove the fetus alive if death is not the point, and they clearly are not so willing.
They are not only willing to, but legally required to where the fetus is independently viable and doing so would not increase the risk of the procedure. That's a nice example of blatantly false propaganda that you've tried to provide as factual evidence, though.
Can you provide proof of your extraordinary claim that women who go in for an abortion are sometimes presented with a live baby they didn't ask for (as a result of an intentional decision by the abortionist to deliver a live baby)? Or am I completely misunderstanding what you seem to be implying.
quote:
quote:
Removing a dead fetus, is not to my knowledge controversial for anyone, and as you seem to enjoy pointing out to Pete, completely irrelevant to the thread.
Except that bans on abortion would, de fact, ban doing it, and of course the point wasn't that they're controversial but rather that they demonstrate that the life of the fetus is incidental to the process.
Nothing about what you said follows logically, people and laws are not mindless. I see no evidence that there is any likiehood that a ban on abortions would require that women carry dead fetuses to term. It doesn't remotely demonstrate your point that the life of the fetus is incidental to the process.
quote:
If the state is going to require such extraction, then the state must also take full responsibility in reflection that it is the one that asserts that it is taking that child as its own. That's a horrific violation of individual rights that you're proposing, for apparently, little reason other than to impose a moralistic punishment on people not behaving the way you want them to.
Lol, its exactly identical to the current standard requiring a male to pay child support to a female that chooses to carry a baby not wanted by the male to term. And it's exactly the same argument about responsibility that imposes those costs. But I'm glad you agree its a horrible violation of the individual rights of men today.

[ December 01, 2015, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
My problem with recognizing rights of the fetus is that it leads inexorably towards significant infringements on the rights of pregnant women. It's the foundation of the criminalization of miscarriage which I find particularly odious. If the rights of the fetus never supersede the rights of the woman, then it doesn't really have rights does it?

Fetal rights allows for the criminalization of behavior that may be potentially harmful to the fetus. If you're pregnant (or might be) smoking or drinking or horseback riding could be illegal. If rights come into conflict, there's nothing that says the most reasonable interpretation will prevail.

quote:
single out a class of humans for unpersoning.
Pete, this is what I mean by "pre-suppose the fetus is a person or a non-technical definition of human." The argument only works if the premise is that a fetus is human (for non-trivial values of human) has already been accepted.
quote:
Maybe we could highlight it with another example, is Caitlin Jenner a man or a woman?
That depends on what you mean by "man" and "woman". Those terms reflect a specific model of how to categorize people. Weren't you just complaining about the inadequacy of certain models?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
Since dec 2000 when I created my Pete account, I never spent a month on Ornery without hearing someone bemoaning the good old days when there was better discussion. As I remember, 2003 was a particularly good year for nostalgia. Whole threads dedicated to the folks that had left, and the wonderful discussions we used to know. You 2015 nostalgics have nothing on the 2003 ones, sonny.
That explains the un-self-aware bubble you sit within. Even now you're able to pat yourself on the back for being here forever and already having passed through nostalgia while dismissing my own regrets about this place. It's good to be an elder, eh?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Glad you caught the irony even though you didn't get that I was being intentionally ironic when I waxed nostalgic about past nostalgia.

Take a break, buddy. I don't dismiss what you said. I just put it into a wider context.

"Good to be an elder"
But hardly as much power or influence over the forum as having been a Mod.

"That explains the un-self-aware bubble you sit within."

I respectfully submit that I am more aware of my self than you are. That's a concept you should be able to grok.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
NH, most existant modern western codes of law and ethics presume that every living human is "is a person or a non-technical definition of human.". Even Dredd Scott and Row v Wade start with this as a presumption, albeit a reputable presumption. It's up to you to prove that an unborn child (as 5+month fetuses have been called for centuries and still are when people aren't posturing for politics)

Look up how Dredd Scott and Row resolve the human in-person hurdle to arrive at your "only technically human" conclusion. READ them because you won't believe me when I say that the court pulled a Tevye. Tradition, tradition, and without our traditions our lives would be as slippery as an embryo on the roof. Yes, the Supreme Court of these Secular United States of America actually cited medieval laws derived from Catholic Canon law, to arrive at the conclusion that since TRADITION did not punish a woman for abortion as much as for, say, infanticide, that a fetus was by tradition not a "person.". In other words SCOTUS assumed that there was NO special protection of a woman's bodily sovereignty, in order to declare the fetus in-person, ergo abortable.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
No, I said blood was different, so would be sperm, unfertilized eggs and DNA, none of which could ever develop into a new human being without additional interference.
In other words, none of those are any different than a human embryo, which also cannot develop into a human without active interference from the mother's body directing the cells in it to develop in a certain way. It's only once the fetus reaches the stage where it's independently viable that it's actually capable of developing into a new being independently, and even that's questionable, as it requires a huge amount of medical intervention to get it there until the last couple of weeks.

quote:
an you provide proof of your extraordinary claim that women who go in for an abortion are sometimes presented with a live baby they didn't ask for (as a result of an intentional decision by the abortionist to deliver a live baby)? Or am I completely misunderstanding what you seem to be implying.
Do you seriously need me to cite you the laws that specify that a fetus past he point of viability should be extracted alive if doing so poses no significant risk?

quote:
Nothing about what you said follows logically, people and laws are not mindless. I see no evidence that there is any likelihood that a ban on abortions would require that women carry dead fetuses to term.
IF you can't abort the pregnancy, how do you propose the dead tissue is removed? Cross your fingers and hope for a miscarriage in time to protect the mother, since any medical assistance in doing so would qualify as an abortion?

quote:
Lol, its exactly identical to the current standard requiring a male to pay child support to a female that chooses to carry a baby not wanted by the male to term. And it's exactly the same argument about responsibility that imposes those costs. But I'm glad you agree its a horrible violation of the individual rights of men today.
Absolutely. It's an absurd relic of badly designed moralistic law, if there had been no explicit pledge to provide support for a child. The state should be providing everyone with a sufficient baseline of support that there's no need to try to squeeze money out of people that otherwise have no real involvement. That's part of what it's fundamentally there for in the first place.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
No, I said blood was different, so would be sperm, unfertilized eggs and DNA, none of which could ever develop into a new human being without additional interference.
In other words, none of those are any different than a human embryo, which also cannot develop into a human without active interference from the mother's body directing the cells in it to develop in a certain way.
Correct. The right harps on the claim that the blastocyst is "a potential life" but that is one of the few things it is not.

A blastocyst is a clump of undifferentiated stem cells. It is already living, so calling it potential life is erroneous. It potentially could become an independent creature. Could become multiple living creatures. Could become part of a living creature. And potentially could become a tumor in a living creature, as too often occurs in stem cell research.

Pro abotlrtion twerps aren't the only ones screwing with language to brainwash when they talk about removing a dead body being "abortion". Toxic lifers argue that we "murder" blastocysts (called "frozen embryos" to minimize the uneducated) when we use them to create spare parts. But how can it be "murder" when nothing even dies? The blastocyst cells live on and multiply, according to their potential. Where is the murder?
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
It's only once the fetus reaches the stage where it's independently viable that it's actually capable of developing into a new being independently, and even that's questionable, as it requires a huge amount of medical intervention to get it there until the last couple of weeks.

This line sounds reasonable until one notices that the slippery slope here is slippery indeed. If "independently viable" is to be your standard for whether an entity has rights then a newborn or even a young infant absolutely does not qualify. At first you need to force the thing to breathe on its own, and then for a year or two you need to literally force it to eat to make it survive. The effective difference in dependency between feeding an infant and feeding a fetus through umbilical cord is approximately zero. It can't do anything by itself and if you don't 'interfere' with the entity it will die.

And yet I don't suppose you'll accept having championed the idea of infanticide as a new form of abortion. So how do you draw the line between the two? The infant is outside and visible so it's too gross to think about doing that?

I could take the slippery slope further and suggest that even an adult is not independent in any kind of rigorous sense as people like to trick themselves into thinking. Take away the nutritive environment and the adult dies as well. You may think you "feed yourself" as an adult but such a simple statement would be omitting all of the factors out of your control that make eating possible, and for which a person can be nothing but be thankful that they're there. That is, in fact, the entire principle behind giving thanks for one's daily bread, as I understand it. It's a recognition that no one is independently self-sufficient.

So your standard as stated is surely insufficient to explain why a late-term fetus should be considered to not be a human being.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Do you seriously need me to cite you the laws that specify that a fetus past he point of viability should be extracted alive if doing so poses no significant risk?"

Does that include "risk" of mom being kept up with a crying baby or of having to pay child support?

Rough consequences I grant, but hardly a justification for de fecto infanticide.

Am just fine if the law stipulated significant risk of physical medical damage to the mother, or even significant risk of medical risk to the mother and created some oversight to make sure it was risk associated with the birth process rather than associated with being a mommy.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
If you don't have a abortion, a person lives. Get one, someone does not live. The end result of abortion is that a person does not exist. Play semantic games all you want but the result will always be the same.

Or a person dies, if dead, necrotic tissue is forced to remain in their body for months.

At least you've backed away from the grossly inaccurate assertion that it's "the point" and apparently conceded that fetal death just an incidental result.

I didn't, I think you just kind of scrub your mind that way. I don't blame you.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
"Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. "

Of course it is. You're just trying to hold it at arms length.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Take away the nutritive environment and the adult dies as well.
And there's your key. Prior to viability, if just provide a nutritive environment to the fetus, it will not continue to develop. A blastocyst in a nutritive environment will remain a blastocyst. Any time before its actually reached a point where all organs have been built beyond a certain point, they will stop developing without the enzymatic action from the mother's body that is actively programming the child's stem cells to become differentiates organ cells.

Even a viable, premature infant requires special lubricants to be applied to its lungs so that it can breathe, which is an exceptional measure that we go to to extend viability back beyond the point where simple nutrition is enough to basically maintain life.

And newborn infants do not need to be forced to breath or seek food. Place a newborn on its mothers belly and it will actually squirm its way up to her breast to eat, given a little time and gentle stimulation and it will start to breath air (the breathing reflex has already been active in the womb, it's just been 'breathing' amniotic fluid) It used to be standard practice to hurry the process along for medical expediency, but that's been falling out of favor.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"Do you seriously need me to cite you the laws that specify that a fetus past he point of viability should be extracted alive if doing so poses no significant risk?"

Does that include "risk" of mom being kept up with a crying baby or of having to pay child support?

You're confusing justification to have an abortion with procedural requirements in the process. And making judgments on facts of other peoples life that you don't have a full understanding of and have no business inserting yourself into.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
A blastocyst is a clump of undifferentiated stem cells. It is already living, so calling it potential life is erroneous. It potentially could become an independent creature. Could become multiple living creatures. Could become part of a living creature. And potentially could become a tumor in a living creature, as too often occurs in stem cell research.
And actually, the normal case is multiple choices from the above. In a normal pregnancy, the mother's body ends up reabsorbing some of the cells throughout the development process and using them for its own purposes despite retaining the different DNA.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
The end result of abortion is that a person does not exist.

And this is why it is useless to have these arguments. If you think an embryo is equivalent to a teenager, of course you think abortion is sick. If you think an embryo is equivalent to the epidermis, you think abortion is about as awful as a pedicure. Which is why some on this thread have tried to define when this moment occurs in human development, at the moment when brain activity occurs (which is the current definition of life at the end of a human life).

The counter argument - nope, it is a human life from implantation, is the same argument that gets made against the determination of brain death. Parallels also exist in the harvesting argument - that people are only being declared brain-dead so the hospital can sell their organs. Also, in the right to euthanasia, which is the ultimate control over one's body - the right to stop breathing - and yet which also remains illegal even when the individual in question can speak for themselves.

I suspect we talk more about abortion than brain death and euthanasia because of both the scale and the greater dissonance of ending a completely healthy life, but they are points on the same trident. Also, completely unresolvable by argument, I suspect.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
No, I said blood was different, so would be sperm, unfertilized eggs and DNA, none of which could ever develop into a new human being without additional interference.
In other words, none of those are any different than a human embryo, which also cannot develop into a human without active interference from the mother's body directing the cells in it to develop in a certain way.
wow, you really got me there. /sarcasm. If you are unwilling to read additional interference in the way I have no doubt you knew it was written, ie that such interference requires an intentional act and sometimes an extraordinary feat of science then your just being difficult. Do you think breathing requires as much intent as walking now?

For the avoidance of doubt, I also acknowledge that a blastocyst can be generated in places, ways and locations that require extraordinary measures to cause it to have a chance to successfully develop into a human.
quote:
quote:
an you provide proof of your extraordinary claim that women who go in for an abortion are sometimes presented with a live baby they didn't ask for (as a result of an intentional decision by the abortionist to deliver a live baby)? Or am I completely misunderstanding what you seem to be implying.
Do you seriously need me to cite you the laws that specify that a fetus past he point of viability should be extracted alive if doing so poses no significant risk?
So no, you can't provide proof of your nonsensical reformulation. I'll give you another chance to prove me wrong by citing to examples of women who seek to terminate a fetus by abortion and are given a live baby instead (generally speaking such a baby would be severely premature, and almost certain represent a massive liability risk to such doctor and/or the mother as it grew older). Citing to laws that prohibit or restrict late term abortions are pretty meaningless.
quote:
quote:
Nothing about what you said follows logically, people and laws are not mindless. I see no evidence that there is any likelihood that a ban on abortions would require that women carry dead fetuses to term.
IF you can't abort the pregnancy, how do you propose the dead tissue is removed?
I said your word games were silly. I put a zero weight on your assertion that laws that prohibit aborting live fetuses would have to restrict aborting dead ones. There's absolutely no logical reason that it would follow as a necessity, other than your apparent belief that the rest of humanity is too stupid to understand such a distinction. It'd be like saying that laws prohibiting voluntary amputation of a limb (intended to prohibit aiding the mentally in intentionally harming themselves) places a risk on medically necessary amputations.
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
"Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. "

Of course it is. You're just trying to hold it at arms length.

No, the first is a belief in rights, the second is an agreement with the specific exercise of those rights. We can support any number of rights of other people and be completely opposed to how they choose to exercise them.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
. If you are unwilling to read additional interference in the way I have no doubt you knew it was written, ie that such interference requires an intentional act and sometimes an extraordinary feat of science then your just being difficult.
That is exactly how I read it, and until the point of viability that is exactly what's required. (And even after our current point of viability)

A blastocyst, simply allowed to have nutrition will remain a blastocyst, or perhaps split into multiple blastocysts. It takes enzymatic action to specialize the cells- they'll specialize into whatever organ they're placed with, and it's only though active processing in the womb that they actually start to from the organs of a new individual being (or perhaps multiple if the blastocyst happens to split before the specialization process begins)

quote:
Do you think breathing requires as much intent as walking now?
Amusingly enough, your position is the one that says they're effectively both automatic. I'm pointing out that walking takes specialized external training to promote walking, it doesn't happen simply by instinct, the way breathing does. Embryonic cells can only become a human body if shaped into on by the mother's enzymes; the cells on their own, even properly nourished, will not instinctively form a human body on their own.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Take away the nutritive environment and the adult dies as well.
And there's your key. Prior to viability, if just provide a nutritive environment to the fetus, it will not continue to develop. A blastocyst in a nutritive environment will remain a blastocyst. Any time before its actually reached a point where all organs have been built beyond a certain point, they will stop developing without the enzymatic action from the mother's body that is actively programming the child's stem cells to become differentiates organ cells.
I guess you just don't understand what "nutritive environment" means. You mention enzymatic action as if it is somehow apart from this. "Oh, it can have a nutritive environment, but it still needs enzymes!" Why do you assume that such enzymes are not part of the environment I mentioned? As others suggest, you're playing word games to squirm out of your wrong statements.

Adults live in a cushy bag of atmosphere surrounding the planet, and if you take it away they die. A fetus sits in a cushy bag of nutrients too. Wow, big difference. The human brain isn't finished basic development until around age 20. Just the fact of requiring the surrounding materials to survive or grow cannot be a factor in determining whether a being has rights. Of if it is a factor you need to draw an arbitrary line at some age and admit it's arbitrary. This is actually totally all right, and such a position would be both logical and consistent. But you aren't content to say this, you want to be able to state some universal law that makes you correct by definition. Sorry to tell you but you can't. That's what makes this debate so difficult.

quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
I suspect we talk more about abortion than brain death and euthanasia because of both the scale and the greater dissonance of ending a completely healthy life, but they are points on the same trident. Also, completely unresolvable by argument, I suspect.

Who is this "we"? People talk about euthanasia plenty. Many Christians in particular have both abortion and euthanasia at the top of their lists of things they have a problem with. In the long run I suspect the euthanasia issue is going to be more society-defining than the abortion issue will be.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:

I'll give you another chance to prove me wrong by citing to examples of women who seek to terminate a fetus by abortion and are given a live baby instead (generally speaking such a baby would be severely premature, and almost certain represent a massive liability risk to such doctor and/or the mother as it grew older).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Jessen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldenburg_Baby
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Ohden

Are a few cases. IN all cases, the child was put up for adoption, not forced on the parent that was attempting to end their pregnancy.

quote:
Citing to laws that prohibit or restrict late term abortions are pretty meaningless.
quote:

Laws that require a viable child that survives an abortion attempt to be treated as if they were a successful live birth are not laws that prevent late term abortions.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr2175
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
You mention enzymatic action as if it is somehow apart from this. "Oh, it can have a nutritive environment, but it still needs enzymes!" Why do you assume that such enzymes are not part of the environment I mentioned?
Because they are not nutrients. They're outside agents acting on the cells. OTherwise you're back at the point where sperm, eggs, and any cell that contains a full set of genetic information is equally covered as a potential human, since they could, with sufficient outside action, be-purposed into a new human body.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Adults live in a cushy bag of atmosphere surrounding the planet, and if you take it away they die.
But the body of the human in question uses the air to promote its own development. The air does not actively repurpose human cells in ways that are required for the human to develop. (In fact, we call the things in the air that repurpose human cells to their own ends "viruses" and tend to need to fight them off)
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Of if it is a factor you need to draw an arbitrary line at some age and admit it's arbitrary.
There really is not arbitrary limit. There's the point where a woman is making her own health decisions about her own body, with expert advice as necessary, and there's the other side of the line where choices are being made on behalf of a distinct being outside of her own body. Any law that says that she cannot make her own choices about her own health and her own body is an impingement on her rights to self determination.
We already acknowledge that we cannot compel people to donate organs, marrow, or even blood to others, regardless of critical need or invasiveness. Except that we seem to be making a one off exemption that only affects women by forcing them to actually give host to another and put themselves at considerable risk, without regard to their express wishes and desires as to whether their body can be used this way.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Adults live in a cushy bag of atmosphere surrounding the planet, and if you take it away they die.
But the body of the human in question uses the air to promote its own development. The air does not actively repurpose human cells in ways that are required for the human to develop. (In fact, we call the things in the air that repurpose human cells to their own ends "viruses" and tend to need to fight them off)
Except that even this isn't true. We have symbiotic relationship with all kinds of organisms including bacteria, without which we would die. Viruses, not as far as I know. But active living agents that keep us alive? Yes.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Adults live in a cushy bag of atmosphere surrounding the planet, and if you take it away they die.
But the body of the human in question uses the air to promote its own development. The air does not actively repurpose human cells in ways that are required for the human to develop. (In fact, we call the things in the air that repurpose human cells to their own ends "viruses" and tend to need to fight them off)
Except that even this isn't true. We have symbiotic relationship with all kinds of organisms including bacteria, without which we would die. Viruses, not as far as I know. But active living agents that keep us alive? Yes.
Not to the degree that they're repurposing our cells to their own ends. Even in the case of symbiosis, they simply provide us with materials that our bodies then use according to its programming. In fetal development, that programming is being put in place. This isn't nutrition, this is active reshaping to a degree that would be considered a grave infection under any other circumstances.

Also, note- the cells in question would not die without such action on them. They would continue to live and thrive. We have multiple such cultures for research purposes doing just that. They simply would remain a collection of cells and never spontaneously decide to develop into a human body.

[ December 02, 2015, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
[QB]
quote:

I'll give you another chance to prove me wrong by citing to examples of women who seek to terminate a fetus by abortion and are given a live baby instead (generally speaking such a baby would be severely premature, and almost certain represent a massive liability risk to such doctor and/or the mother as it grew older).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Jessen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldenburg_Baby
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Ohden

Are a few cases. IN all cases, the child was put up for adoption, not forced on the parent that was attempting to end their pregnancy.

All three of your examples are of failed abortions, not of intentional preservation of the fetus. Please retract your statements.
quote:
quote:
Citing to laws that prohibit or restrict late term abortions are pretty meaningless.
quote:

Laws that require a viable child that survives an abortion attempt to be treated as if they were a successful live birth are not laws that prevent late term abortions.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr2175

Such laws are completely irrelevant to your extraordinary claim. No one disputes that you can't murder a child that was accidentally born live instead of killed as a fetus. Nothing so far backs your claim that the abortionist would intentionally deliver a live fetus if it was viable, instead of killing it in utero.

Can you not ever just admit you overstated something?

[ December 02, 2015, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
All three of your examples are of failed abortions, not of intentional preservation of the fetus.
Six of one, half dozen of the other, since those are also all of the cases in which preserving the life of the child does not represent additional risk to the woman in question. Unless you're ignoring the explicit qualification in my claim to try to make me show evidence of something that I was not talking about?
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
All three of your examples are of failed abortions, not of intentional preservation of the fetus.
Six of one, half dozen of the other, since those are also all of the cases in which preserving the life of the child does not represent additional risk to the woman in question. Unless you're ignoring the explicit qualification in my claim to try to make me show evidence of something that I was not talking about?
Lol, I'll remind you of your actual claim:
quote:
quote:
By implication, abortion providers should be willing to remove the fetus alive if death is not the point, and they clearly are not so willing.
They are not only willing to, but legally required to where the fetus is independently viable and doing so would not increase the risk of the procedure. That's a nice example of blatantly false propaganda that you've tried to provide as factual evidence, though.
You've presented no circumstance where your response to me is valid. No evidence that any abortionist would ever seek or act to preserve the life of the fetus in connection with an abortion. Preservation of babies accidentally borne in no way responds to my claim that they are unwilling to remove the fetus alive.

Your hanging your hat on the concept of zero-risk to the mother (which no credible doctor would every claim there is a non-zero risk, even if the risk is trivial, while the child is in utero), makes the entire set for which your counter-assertion would be true ZERO cases. In short your assertion that I was engaging in blatantly false propaganda has been refuted, and revealed as nothing but sophistry on your part.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
In short your assertion that I was engaging in blatantly false propaganda has been refuted, and revealed as nothing but sophistry on your part.
No, we've just highlighted _why_ it's false propaganda. Specifically because it hand waves away the fact that forcing a live birth significantly ratchets up the risk of the procedure. It pretends that there's a way to magically pop the baby out without introducing risk, while clinical abortion processes seek to minimize risk.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
Pyr, if you think the pro-choice community at large would support the notion of saving a viable fetus when a woman requested an abortion then you're so far removed from reality that you may as well be discussing the moon landing. There would be riots in the street if a woman went in for an abortion and they decided to give her a live baby instead.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Pyr, if you think the pro-choice community at large would support the notion of saving a viable fetus when a woman requested an abortion then you're so far removed from reality that you may as well be discussing the moon landing. There would be riots in the street if a woman went in for an abortion and they decided to give her a live baby instead.

Indeed- that would be exposing her to significant risk without her consent. You're missing the point here, which is the argument form the other side essentially pretending that a forced birth is a minimal to no risk procedure when it suggests that there's "no reason" that doctors shouldn't choose that over an abortion, which has a much lower risk level by the very nature of the procedure.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
A blastocyst is a clump of undifferentiated stem cells. It is already living, so calling it potential life is erroneous. It potentially could become an independent creature. Could become multiple living creatures. Could become part of a living creature. And potentially could become a tumor in a living creature, as too often occurs in stem cell research.
And actually, the normal case is multiple choices from the above. In a normal pregnancy, the mother's body ends up reabsorbing some of the cells throughout the development process and using them for its own purposes despite retaining the different DNA.
Cool! That fits my point even better. I thought 2/3 of blastocysts just flushed out. Can you help me source that? (Not an obligation, but would appreciate a pointer if you remember where you learned it.

My lover used to do bio research, and I'lol ask if she knows about that when she gets done w work.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Pyr, if you think the pro-choice community at large would support the notion of saving a viable fetus when a woman requested an abortion then you're so far removed from reality that you may as well be discussing the moon landing. There would be riots in the street if a woman went in for an abortion and they decided to give her a live baby instead.

That is actually the law in Illinois.
quote:
720 ILCS 510/6: Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus.
In fact, 13 states require that a separate physician for the fetus is in attendance. I couldn't say whether they give her the baby, though.

[ December 02, 2015, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
kmbboots, that's interesting but I wonder whether it actually results in anything in real life. Do you have some evidence that women in Illinois regularly go in for abortions and come out with a baby? I guess I'd have to ask as well what the law there is in terms of how late in the term an abortion can happen. If the law only permits abortions at such a time that the fetus is undeveloped then the point would be moot since there would be zero overlap between abortion procedures and fetuses that could be viable.

But rethink things for a moment in hypothetical terms: what if, early in the pregnancy, a method could be employed to accelerate gestation of the fetus/embryo such that when the abortion was performed it could be saved. Do you think most pro-choice women would applaud this novel way of saving the fetus while still not having to carry it to term, or do you think they would be against this procedure? Since this is a hypothetical it would be a guess, but I'm curious to hear what you think would happen.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I don't think social services (who I expect would be involved in that case) would let her "come out with a baby". I think the more pertinent question is does she sign away parental rights there on the spot? Does the state pursue her for child support?

I think you are right that there are SOME women who would prefer the "finality" of a terminated pregnancy over guilt for abandoning a child. But there, I think the decision to disregard the wishes of a mother is consistent with our legal traditions.

Pro-choice is about a woman's decision to bring a child to term, it is not, (despite what Rafi seems to suggest) about the right to end a life without repercussions.

[ December 02, 2015, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Fenring, I think that accelerating a pregnancy would have serious physical consequences for the woman who was pregnant. If, on the other hand, one could remove the fetus to an artificial womb with no more risk to the woman than an abortion would be, I would not be against it. I would also entertain the notion of requiring both parents contributing financially to the welfare of the child until it is adopted though I think insisting that they raise the child would be a mistake.

I also think that we would have to come up with a humane and responsible way of providing for the welfare of a lot of unwanted babies but I still think that is preferable to requiring unwilling parents to do so.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Not to mention safer for the infant...
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I don't think social services (who I expect would be involved in that case) would let her "come out with a baby". I think the more pertinent question is does she sign away parental rights there on the spot? Does the state pursue her for child support?

I think you are right that there are SOME women who would prefer the "finality" of a terminated pregnancy over guilt for abandoning a child. But there, I think the decision to disregard the wishes of a mother is consistent with our legal traditions.

Pro-choice is about a woman's decision to bring a child to term, it is not, (despite what Rafi seems to suggest) about the right to end a life without repercussions.

I agree with you and this was sort of my point. But I suspect that more than just some women would object to the effort of finding ways to save the baby. I'm speculating, of course, but based on how I've heard many people talk about the issue it seems that their objective in going for an abortion is to make the problem go away. What I'm saying - to use Pete's term - is that I suspect many pro-choice proponents are also pro-abortion.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
That's part of why I side with Pete that dehumanizing is a poor tactic to justifying abortion. Medical science (excluding a resurgent dark age) will force the issue eventually.

I suppose we may get to a point where birth control is 100% effective and universally accessible first...

Anyhow, framing it as a women's rights issue is (easily IMO) defensible, but (unfortunately to most/many) results in the fetus never developing into a child/person. Once both can be satisfied, we will see those who just want to make the problem go away as monsters.

Some of us already do... yet support the right to an abortion despite that.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
It seems like the Illinois rule bans abortions after the viability of the fetus, except for the health and safety of the mother. That is when the rule KMBoots comes into play, where a post-viable fetus is being aborted to preserve the health of the mother. It's tough to say from a distance what that actually means, as the health and safety exceptions can be interpreted anywhere from proof of a physical harm, to completely free choice on the abortion eradicating the base rule.

Has it every actually been implemented?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
It has been the law for 40 years so I imagine. How would I know?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Not to mention safer for the infant...

Well, yes. That is why it is preferable. Although given our history with orphanages...
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
That's part of why I side with Pete that dehumanizing is a poor tactic to justifying abortion. Medical science (excluding a resurgent dark age) will force the issue eventually.

I think that's why the personhood question is actually important. Eventually, if society wants, it will be feasible to rescue fertilized eggs from their likely doom and ensure that they develop into human beings. If we think that would be a pretty damn silly thing to do, then we need some answer to when it becomes something we should try to save.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Do you have some evidence that women in Illinois regularly go in for abortions and come out with a baby?
If they go in for an abortion, hey go in for an abortion. If the go in for a delivery they go in for a delivery. The choice surrounding viability and risk doesn't magically happen midstream, it dictates the procedure used before the process even begins.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
I agree with you and this was sort of my point. But I suspect that more than just some women would object to the effort of finding ways to save the baby. I'm speculating, of course, but based on how I've heard many people talk about the issue it seems that their objective in going for an abortion is to make the problem go away. What I'm saying - to use Pete's term - is that I suspect many pro-choice proponents are also pro-abortion.
That's why there's a careful counselling process ahead of time to explore all the possible options and associated risks and ensure that the woman is making the choice she wants of her own free will.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
That's a good point scifibum. Removing the "life or death" question from the hands of the woman/mother sounds all well and good. Until you consider that the decision still has to pass the even less personal State questions of, "Who pays for these children? What impact does it have on our population levels?"
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
I agree with you and this was sort of my point. But I suspect that more than just some women would object to the effort of finding ways to save the baby. I'm speculating, of course, but based on how I've heard many people talk about the issue it seems that their objective in going for an abortion is to make the problem go away. What I'm saying - to use Pete's term - is that I suspect many pro-choice proponents are also pro-abortion.
That's why there's a careful counselling process ahead of time to explore all the possible options and associated risks and ensure that the woman is making the choice she wants of her own free will.
Something tells me you're only hearing what you want to hear, so I'll spell out what several of us are saying: If a woman could both decide what happens to her body, and if the fetus could also be saved with no risk to her, someone who's pro-abortion would contest the state's right to save the fetus anyhow. You keep talking about the woman's choice and free will as if that's what the discussion is about. As far as I know the participants here all agree on that already. The point is whether the fetus also has rights, even though those don't supersede the mother's rights. But in a case where the mother could terminate the pregnancy and the doctors could arrange for that termination to also not terminate the fetus, the pro-choice argument fades away and the pro-abortion issue arises.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
But in a case where the mother could terminate the pregnancy and the doctors could arrange for that termination to also not terminate the fetus, the pro-choice argument fades away and the pro-abortion issue arises.
We can already do that, that's called a scheduled C-section. Which is fine, if the woman is willing to consent to that procedure and give the child up for adoption. And Planned Parenthood does arrange those for women who want them and have no other complications that need to be urgently addressed.

But any suggestion that the doctor suddenly switch which procedure is being used without active and informed consent from the patient due to anything but immediate medical emergency is a violation of her rights.

If you go in to have your appendix out and wake up and are told "Oh we decided to grab some marrow while we had you open, since you're a good match for this other patient that needed it, it would be a legal and ethical violation of your rights, right? I mean, if we could update the process so that you'd feel no physical negative affects from it yourself, you'd be more likely to consent to it out of the gate, but doing it without your permission would still be bad practice.

The same goes here, particularly at the technology point we're talking about. If we're effectively capable of developing an embryo from fertilization to viability, then there's even less of a point of taking one from an unwilling host to give to someone else, instead we should create one from willing donors.

So long as the baby is developing within a woman's body, it needs to be the woman's call as to what happens to it and what procedures she will or won't consent to. Any less is subsuming her rights in favor of control over her. You cannot force her to submit to a live birth of any sort without curtailing her rights to personal autonomy, since the developing child is part of her right up to the moment that it's born. So long as it's part of her, she should have sole jurisdiction over whatever rights she chooses to extend to it, not any other external legal entity.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Cool! That fits my point even better. I thought 2/3 of blastocysts just flushed out. Can you help me source that? (Not an obligation, but would appreciate a pointer if you remember where you learned it.

My lover used to do bio research, and I'lol ask if she knows about that when she gets done w work.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-discover-childrens-cells-living-in-mothers-brain/
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/babys-cells-can-manipulate-moms-body-decades-180956493/?no-ist
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/your-babys-leftover-dna-is-making-you-stronger/381140/

Those are some top of the heap links. It's solidly established that it happens, hte questions lie mostly in what the effects on health are.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
From the last of those:
quote:
A 2004 study found the presence of male genes in 21 percent of women overall—even among those who had only given birth to daughters, had a miscarriage, underwent an abortion, or had never been pregnant. Researchers speculate the unknown DNA could have come from a miscarriage these women never recognized, or from an older brother who transferred cells to their mother, who in turn passed the genes onto subsequent children. Or—here’s where the science starts to feel like sci-fi—women could have picked it up through sexual intercourse, traces of past lovers never lost.

 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Thank you Pyr! Can't wait to show my better half. She was very curious at lunch.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
That's part of why I side with Pete that dehumanizing is a poor tactic to justifying abortion. Medical science (excluding a resurgent dark age) will force the issue eventually.

I think that's why the personhood question is actually important. Eventually, if society wants, it will be feasible to rescue fertilized eggs from their likely doom and ensure that they develop into human beings. If we think that would be a pretty damn silly thing to do, then we need some answer to when it becomes something we should try to save.
Do is talking about fetuses. Not of unemployed fertilized eggs. All reasonable and informed persons agree a fertilized egg is not a human being. It's a bundle of stem cells, which are sometimes used to create a human being, and more often either flushed or used to make spare parts.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
There are a lot of unreasonable and uninformed people out there making law.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
There are a lot of unreasonable and uninformed people out there making law.

And interpreting it as well, sad to say. There are SCOTUS majority opinions that classify prevention of implantation as a form of "abortion.". And I am talking the very same justices who are MI's credited as ruling for a woman's sovereignty over her body. The Carhart decision reads more like a physician's sovereignty over a female patient's body
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Even after cell differentiation begins, I believe the majority of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted. This is not generally regarded as a crime or a tragedy.

Following DW's point, eventually we might have the tech to provide artificial wombs for any stage of gestation, and decide to do transplants rather than kill the fetus or embryo. So there has to be some kind of dividing line between "being with rights whose life we will save rather than allow it to die in the abortion" and a previous stage. I'm not talking about "dehumanizing", I'm talking about some kind of rational limit to the degree to which we invade and intervene to ensure pregnancies never fail to produce persons. So where's that line? We can't avoid it once the issue of rescue as part of abortion is part of the picture.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Yes, there are strong arguments to make to meet the burden of proof to say an embryo should not be legally treated as a human being. I personally go with fully realized human infant brain waves, which appear at 10 weeks) as the line for unrestricted elective abortion. (NOTE THAT IS ONLY 2 WEEKS SHY OF THE 3 MONTH RULE IN ROE V WADE!)


But reasonable informed and honest persons can disagree on embryos.

The blastocyst issue is really obvious and unambiguous when we have the facts. Like I said, the blastocyst is alive, and is life, but cannot be termed 'A life'. You could make a thousand babies from a single blastocyst or just create a nerve or a gum socket or an eyeball.

[ December 02, 2015, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
So don't count weeks, just run a brain wave test. How's that for a line, Sci-fi? Wanna join the pro-brain party? In the fine tradition of the US abortion debate, We can call everyone who disagrees with us "anti-brain" [Smile]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
That sounds like a reasonable line, Pete, although many Christians, just as an example, will never agree with that.

Do you think it would really constitute an invasion of a woman's rights to have the terms of an abortion be that the embryo or fetus is safely extracted, provided it carries no threat to the woman? As I see it the issue of 'woman's right' stems from the idea that the state cannot require of a woman that her body be subjected to a pregnancy. But I don't see how her right to determine what happens to the embryo or fetus should enter into it.

Right now stopping the pregnancy requires aborting the embryo or fetus, but once that's not so I don't see how her right to choose what happens to her body should extend to her also having the right to determine what happens to the 'body' of the embryo or fetus.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Brain wave test sounds reasonable. How hard is it to check?

Fenring, for the foreseeable future, any procedure that could remove the embryo or fetus would present a significant risk of complications. That strikes me an invasion of rights.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Fenring, for the foreseeable future, any procedure that could remove the embryo or fetus would present a significant risk of complications. That strikes me an invasion of rights.

Right, but that's only a technological 'coincidence.' The moment it's safe to do the question will arise and have to be dealt with. For the purposes of our discussion we seem to be talking about the principles behind people's positions, not just the restrictions our methods put on which part of our principles we can reasonably enact right now.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
I suspect by the time we get the ability to do it without it being invasive surgery, unintended pregnancy will be far easier to avoid.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Brain wave test sounds reasonable. How hard is it to check?
.

Not sure how hard to check noninvasively in utero, and that's what it would have to be to be reasonably imposed as a test. Hope someone here with an academic account could look that up. Seems it can't be that hard or we would not have the knowledge we have about that pattern.

Yes, many of my fellow Christians would fight this tooth and nail because it sets an ethical and even an arguably MORAL standard for elective abortion. And would also by implication allow for some elective euthanasia.

"Fenring, for the foreseeable future, any procedure that could remove the embryo or fetus would present a significant risk of complications. That strikes me an invasion of rights"

Is seems to me that the threshold dispositive fact is not the degree of intrusion, but rather:

The Difference between the procedure VA the abortion procedure that would have been used, as far as infusion goes.

I doubt that any fetal removal procedure will ever be less intrusive than RU-486 on a 2 month embryo. But delivering a live baby may very well be reasonable in comparison to a D&X procedure.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I suspect by the time we get the ability to do it without it being invasive surgery, unintended pregnancy will be far easier to avoid.

That depends on where the research money goes. And if fetal protection laws are in the wind, I suspect there will be more money in the convenient birth control kitty.

I've argued here that the government should pay people to get sterilized on top of paying for the procedure (pay women MUCH more than men be it is more invasive and harder to reverse) but have not made any converts yet.

Best way to reduce abortion is more universal birth control.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
I think the level of medical technology required to allow for embryos or fetuses to be brought to term outside of the mother's body means we'll be able to easily control reproduction.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I suspect by the time we get the ability to do it without it being invasive surgery, unintended pregnancy will be far easier to avoid.

That depends on where the research money goes. And if fetal protection laws are in the wind, I suspect there will be more money in the convenient birth control kitty.

I've argued here that the government should pay people to get sterilized on top of paying for the procedure (pay women MUCH more than men be it is more invasive and harder to reverse) but have not made any converts yet.

Best way to reduce abortion is more universal birth control.

I don't think it's a bad idea, but it's a tough sell when cases are going to the supreme court over religious beliefs about birth control. Republicans (because they court the votes of those who think birth control is a sin) would play the eugenics card.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I think the level of medical technology required to allow for embryos or fetuses to be brought to term outside of the mother's body means we'll be able to easily control reproduction.

Easily, yes. Cheaply? Not since Congress extended medical patents to twenty years. That's the problem with our fascist health care system.Orient that a Republican bill has made Americans subsidize cutting age medicine for the rest of the world.

So the rich will have convenient safe birth control a quarter century before the poor. This has the effect of concentrating wealth among fewer people.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
I've argued here that the government should pay people to get sterilized on top of paying for the procedure (pay women MUCH more than men be it is more invasive and harder to reverse) but have not made any converts yet.
RISUG is looking very effective and promising:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I suspect by the time we get the ability to do it without it being invasive surgery, unintended pregnancy will be far easier to avoid.

That depends on where the research money goes. And if fetal protection laws are in the wind, I suspect there will be more money in the convenient birth control kitty.

I've argued here that the government should pay people to get sterilized on top of paying for the procedure (pay women MUCH more than men be it is more invasive and harder to reverse) but have not made any converts yet.

Best way to reduce abortion is more universal birth control.

I don't think it's a bad idea, but it's a tough sell when cases are going to the supreme court over religious beliefs about birth control. Republicans (because they court the votes of those who think birth control is a sin) would play the eugenics card.
Lots of folks who think birth control is a sin will still like the idea of privately taking money to get safely sterilized. Like SSM there will be a gap between the surveys and the election results.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
I've argued here that the government should pay people to get sterilized on top of paying for the procedure (pay women MUCH more than men be it is more invasive and harder to reverse) but have not made any converts yet.
RISUG is looking very effective and promising:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance

That's awesome! Thank you! Even more convenient. A five minute procedure you could do on a coffee break. The government could refurbish a bloodmobile to run out to parks and high population areas, sterilize guys and write checks. Kind of like an under the belt tooth fairy.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I think the level of medical technology required to allow for embryos or fetuses to be brought to term outside of the mother's body means we'll be able to easily control reproduction.

Getting a fetus out of the womb safely won't exactly require Star Trek technology, but on the other hand even in Star Trek time I doubt they've solved people being irresponsible or accidents happening.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
And fully reversible when you actually decide that you're ready to go.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
It's not necessarily about getting the fetus out of the womb, it's about reliable development once it's out. Not to mention doing it without slicing the mother open or otherwise permanently altering her body.

If birth control turns into a one and done procedure with near-perfect reversibility the effect of accidents and irresponsible decisions would be greatly reduced.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
I just imagined a story idea where in the near future this reversible procedure has become so standard that people do it without even giving it a second thought. Then a major disaster strikes, like a Captain Tripps style contagion, and after celebrating their immunity the survivors realize with horror that there is no doctor around to reverse the procedure and that they will be the last generation of Americans.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Because boys who haven't yet had the procedure won't grow up and procreate? People who are not doctors are unable to figure it out?
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
How about some alien visitation / abduction that is a like an intellectual rapture?

But I like that first story idea more...
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Because boys who haven't yet had the procedure won't grow up and procreate? People who are not doctors are unable to figure it out?

Hey give me a break, I don't even have an editor yet.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I think the level of medical technology required to allow for embryos or fetuses to be brought to term outside of the mother's body means we'll be able to easily control reproduction.

Reproduction is easily controlled right now. From abstinence, 100% effective, to contraceptives that are more than 99% effective. These methods of control range from completely free and available to every songle person on the planet to as cheap as a cup of coffee in America and available for the asking.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I think the level of medical technology required to allow for embryos or fetuses to be brought to term outside of the mother's body means we'll be able to easily control reproduction.

Reproduction is easily controlled right now. From abstinence, 100% effective, to contraceptives that are more than 99% effective. These methods of control range from completely free and available to every songle person on the planet to as cheap as a cup of coffee in America and available for the asking.
I think what he means is that the success rate of these is worse than advertised. One fails when you become weak, and the other fails when you are irresponsible or incompetent. With a simple surgical procedure that carried no risk there would be no scenario of screwing things up.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
From abstinence, 100% effective, to contraceptives that are more than 99% effective.

Abstinence has about the worst failure rate of any plan, because people simply don't follow through on it. And even more, people that tr to apply it are generally less prepared with backup and contingency plans to compensate for first line failures. and far more likely to hide and fail to promptly deal with those failures than people who are more honest about what they'll likely end up doing and prepare for it properly, never mind having a clear idea of what their follow plan of action is in the worst case scenarios.
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1