Planned Parenthood

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Totally different - Romney's comment was taped by someone working as a bartender at that event - Not by someone using the sleazy tactics of Breitbart who out and out lies about who he is and represents (of which I'm not so sure is bad).

It is funny watching you state that liberals hate how the video was obtained yet it is conserv. controlled state legisl. who have been passing laws prohibiting people from taking undercover video of farms and slaughter houses.

"so what exactly does that mean? It could mean they try to make sure there are organs to provide for research (of which she clearly stated that they don't make $ off of regardless of how the right is trying to spin the videos)."

The law says that it's a crime to alter an abortion procedure for th epurposes of maximizing harvestable tissue. The law doesn't care if the tissue is to be used for scientific reserach or for a sandwich. The $$ is another law, which says you can cover your expenses, but not make a profit.

"Romney's comment was taped by someone working as a bartender at that event - Not by someone using the sleazy tactics of Breitbart "

Splitting hairs. Undercover videos are used to get people to say things they wouldn't say if they knew they were being recorded. Common sense suggests that people will be more honest and sincere, if they don't know they are being recorded. Sometomes, that's the only way to get the truth.

Some liberal jerk called Governor Scott Walker a couple of years ago, claiming to be one of the Koch Brothers, and Walker said some things that he wouldn't have said if he knew it was a set-up, and I don't recall people on the left complaining about how the footage was obtained. Fabulously, Walker did mention it that conversation that he's not concerned about MSNBC because nobody watches it.

"funny watching you state that liberals hate how the video was obtained "

I'm not just stating it, it's true. You yourself decried how the video was obtained.

"t is conserv. controlled state legisl. who have been passing laws prohibiting people from taking undercover video of farms and slaughter houses"

I'm 100% in favor of such undercover videos. While i love a bloody steak, I also believe we have a responsibility to treat the animals as humanely and ethically as is reasonably feasible. Fair enough?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"so what exactly does that mean? It could mean they try to make sure there are organs to provide for research (of which she clearly stated that they don't make $ off of regardless of how the right is trying to spin the videos)."

The law says that it's a crime to alter an abortion procedure for th epurposes of maximizing harvestable tissue. The law doesn't care if the tissue is to be used for scientific reserach or for a sandwich. The $$ is another law, which says you can cover your expenses, but not make a profit.
I'm not saying the procedure was altered I'm saying that maybe instead of just ripping the fetus apart, they are more carefull - disgusting, I know and meant it that way.
"Romney's comment was taped by someone working as a bartender at that event - Not by someone using the sleazy tactics of Breitbart "

Splitting hairs. Undercover videos are used to get people to say things they wouldn't say if they knew they were being recorded. Common sense suggests that people will be more honest and sincere, if they don't know they are being recorded. Sometomes, that's the only way to get the truth. i'm gonna disagree that it is splitting hairs. and I did say that I'm not sure I disagree with the tactic.

Some liberal jerk called Governor Scott Walker a couple of years ago, claiming to be one of the Koch Brothers, and Walker said some things that he wouldn't have said if he knew it was a set-up, and I don't recall people on the left complaining about how the footage was obtained. Fabulously, Walker did mention it that conversation that he's not concerned about MSNBC because nobody watches it.I'd consider that the almost the same as the PP video but the same as working at a farm and pulling a camera out and filing the mistreatment of an animal.

"funny watching you state that liberals hate how the video was obtained "

I'm not just stating it, it's true. You yourself decried how the video was obtained. I don't think I stated it the way you just implied I did."t is conserv. controlled state legisl. who have been passing laws prohibiting people from taking undercover video of farms and slaughter houses"

I'm 100% in favor of such undercover videos. While i love a bloody steak, I also believe we have a responsibility to treat the animals as humanely and ethically as is reasonably feasible. Fair enough?

nm

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

nm

"I'm not saying the procedure was altered I'm saying that maybe instead of just ripping the fetus apart, they are more carefull - disgusting, I know and meant it that way. "

But in the videos the PP folks are explicitly saying that the procedures were altered, and they said it was done to influence the useful tissue for later use. That's what was said, and it's a blatant violation of federal law, and whie that alone isn't enough to convict anyone (maybe) sure as hell it should launch an investigation. And at a bare minumum, I should not be required to fund this place. I don't want my $$ going to these heartless ghouls. .

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But in the videos the PP folks are explicitly saying that the procedures were altered, and they said it was done to influence the useful tissue for later use. That's what was said, and it's a blatant violation of federal law, and whie that alone isn't enough to convict anyone (maybe) sure as hell it should launch an investigation. And at a bare minumum, I should not be required to fund this place. I don't want my $$ going to these heartless ghouls. .

The laws intent is that you wouldn't say choose one form of abortion over another, or suggest an abortion with the intent of collecting tissue. But once that's said and done it's going to be more expensive to preserve tissue than just dispose of it...it's a different procedure.

As for heartless ghouls, I can guarantee you that many people who work for non-profits do so precisely because they want to help others...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The laws intent is that you wouldn't say choose one form of abortion over another, or suggest an abortion with the intent of collecting tissue. But once that's said and done it's going to be more expensive to preserve tissue than just dispose of it...it's a different procedure.

As for heartless ghouls, I can guarantee you that many people who work for non-profits do so precisely because they want to help others...

I'm not all that interested in your slant on the intent of the law. What the law says, is that you cannot let your concern over harvestable tissue, have any influence in the way abortions are done. The tapes suggest to any person not blinded by ideology, that laws may well have been broken. The women claimed to be manipulating living babies, in such a way as to maximize harvestable tissue. It's a cause for an investigation and for using taxpayer dollars elsewhere.

"I can guarantee you that many people who work for non-profits do so precisely because they want to help others"

The mere fact that an organization does not generate profits, does not make it noble. Did the Klan turn a profit? The Nazis similarly could claim that what they were doing, was for the benefit of others, as some did indeed benefit. A benign charity helps one group without butchering another group, and then bragging about it over salad and red wine.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not all that interested in your slant on the intent of the law. What the law says, is that you cannot let your concern over harvestable tissue, have any influence in the way abortions are done. The tapes suggest to any person not blinded by ideology, that laws may well have been broken. The women claimed to be manipulating living babies, in such a way as to maximize harvestable tissue. It's a cause for an investigation and for using taxpayer dollars elsewhere.

Jim, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. There is a period where the pregnancy is technically terminated but the procedure is not complete. If an agency was to alter the procedure post termination to best preserve the tissue that wouldn't be illegal.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. There is a period where the pregnancy is technically terminated but the procedure is not complete. If an agency was to alter the procedure post termination to best preserve the tissue that wouldn't be illegal.

I see. So according to you, it's legal to turn the baby upside down while it's still alive, but illegal to do it after it has been killed. Can you please cite the portion of the law which states that? I would be more than shocked if that were the case, but I am persuadable. Please post that portion of the text.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

A benign charity helps one group without butchering another group, and then bragging about it over salad and red wine.

You make it sound like dinner at the Vatican.
Food for thought,no pun intended but history proves my point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device