Planned Parenthood

[spence]

So far I haven't seen any evidence any laws were broken, just some cold discussion of a subject that's difficult for most people to hear. The Govt budgets 76 million a year for fetal tissue research, Planned Parenthood isn't the only organization involved...

It's also worth remembering that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood's services (97%) are NOT abortion and the vast majority of those abortions are early and wouldn't likely even result in tissue available for research.

Also, Obama was pretty clear that his lack of support for the IL state BAIPA had nothing to do with limiting rights outside of the womb, it was that he didn't want the bill to be used as a political/legal tool to restrict women's rights inside the womb.

For all your ranting about cleaver wielding ghouls, the reality is more like cancer screening for poor women and new treatments for disease.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

So far I haven't seen any evidence any laws were broken, just some cold discussion of a subject that's difficult for most people to hear. The Govt budgets 76 million a year for fetal tissue research, Planned Parenthood isn't the only organization involved...

It's also worth remembering that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood's services (97%) are NOT abortion and the vast majority of those abortions are early and wouldn't likely even result in tissue available for research.

Also, Obama was pretty clear that his lack of support for the IL state BAIPA had nothing to do with limiting rights outside of the womb, it was that he didn't want the bill to be used as a political/legal tool to restrict women's rights inside the womb.

For all your ranting about cleaver wielding ghouls, the reality is more like cancer screening for poor women and new treatments for disease.

nauseating beyond words....but when has Spence not defended the indefensible?.......... par for the course

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

nauseating beyond words....but when has Spence not defended the indefensible?.......... par for the course

Did you say something?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Did you say something?

Selective hearing.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

So far I haven't seen any evidence any laws were broken, just some cold discussion of a subject that's difficult for most people to hear. The Govt budgets 76 million a year for fetal tissue research, Planned Parenthood isn't the only organization involved...

It's also worth remembering that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood's services (97%) are NOT abortion and the vast majority of those abortions are early and wouldn't likely even result in tissue available for research.

Also, Obama was pretty clear that his lack of support for the IL state BAIPA had nothing to do with limiting rights outside of the womb, it was that he didn't want the bill to be used as a political/legal tool to restrict women's rights inside the womb.

For all your ranting about cleaver wielding ghouls, the reality is more like cancer screening for poor women and new treatments for disease.

You don't see any evidence, because you don't (or can't, beats me) see that which doesn't support The Narrative. You don't concede ICE has any legal standing to detain illegal aliens.

And if Obama's concern about the bill was that someone could widen the scope to include abortion restrictions, why the hell didn't he write a law that made killing living babies illegal, yet kept abortion legal? He's supposed to be a somewhat talented legislator, correct? Obviously, he wasn't all that bothered by what was happening, because he did exactly zilch to stop it and at the risk of sounding like The Dad Fisherman, try making that wrong, please.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You don't see any evidence, because you don't (or can't, beats me) see that which doesn't support The Narrative. You don't concede ICE has any legal standing to detain illegal aliens.

So what's the evidence that PP is profiting from a systemic scheme to trade in fetal tissue?

ICE has the authority to detain illegal aliens, nobody ever said they don't. That's not the issue, the problem is that ICE detainers unless accompanied by a warrant are simply a request. Just because it comes from a Federal agency doesn't mean it trumps local procedures...it's a fuzzy part of the law that should be corrected with more comprehensive reform.

And if Obama's concern about the bill was that someone could widen the scope to include abortion restrictions, why the hell didn't he write a law that made killing living babies illegal, yet kept abortion legal? He's supposed to be a somewhat talented legislator, correct? Obviously, he wasn't all that bothered by what was happening, because he did exactly zilch to stop it and at the risk of sounding like The Dad Fisherman, try making that wrong, please.

Is this even a big problem to begin with or just politically motivated legislation?

The irony of all this outrage is that if conservatives are successful in de-funding Planned Parenthood the number of abortions in the country is going to skyrocket...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

So what's the evidence that PP is profiting from a systemic scheme to trade in fetal tissue?

.

Makes no difference whether they are making a profit or not, it's just plain inhuman and wrong.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Makes no difference whether they are making a profit or not, it's just plain inhuman and wrong.

Well, it makes a big difference under the law. If there's scientific gain and enough control to prevent abuse then I wouldn't say it's inhuman and wrong, but it certainly falls into an ethical gray area that should be taken very seriously.

But if you're pro-life the argument is moot anyway.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

So far I haven't seen any evidence any laws were broken, .

Again, what you see, tends to depend upon the issue you are advocating.

Federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

Tell me that the videos don't suggest that this federal law was broken.

[scottw]

excellent article http://www.nationalreview.com/node/422048/print

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

excellent article http://www.nationalreview.com/node/422048/print

Yes, researchers will pay 20K for fetal stem cells just because they're "curious" and "hopeful."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, researchers will pay 20K for fetal stem cells just because they're "curious" and "hopeful."

Yes, they will. Because as of this moment, nothing of any significance has come from that research.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes, they will. Because as of this moment, nothing of any significance has come from that research.

Why, because someone posted a single biased article stating so? Is that how you form opinions?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Why, because someone posted a single biased article stating so? Is that how you form opinions?

No, I knew that before Scott W posted it. Charles Krauthammer (a Harvard-trained physician who is also in a wheelchair, so he stands to gain much from some of this research) has written at length about it. Google it. There have been no significant medical treatments due to embryonic stem cells. They may be promising, but as of today, they haven't delivered anything.

Also, why aren't the Planned {Parenthood videos, which clearly show executives stating that they are in the practice of altering abortion procedures to maximize harvestable tissue, enough to launch an investigation to see if that's exactly what's happening.

Soence, if there was a video of the head of HR at Goldman Sachs saying "I have never hired a black person at this firm, and I never will, i don't care what the law says", would you call for an investigation? Or would you assume that the video was edited, and leave it at that? Hmm?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes, they will. Because as of this moment, nothing of any significance has come from that research.

I thought I read a few months ago that some blind or nearly blind people had their vision restored from the implanting of embryonic (sp) stem cells. I could be wrong.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I thought I read a few months ago that some blind or nearly blind people had their vision restored from the implanting of embryonic (sp) stem cells. I could be wrong.

I googled it and didn't see anything, but I could be wrong too.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Again, what you see, tends to depend upon the issue you are advocating.

Federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

Tell me that the videos don't suggest that this federal law was broken.

The videos are heavily edited, they suggest what the editors want them to suggest.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The videos are heavily edited, they suggest what the editors want them to suggest.

Shocker.

Is it not enough for an investigation, Spence? The lady from Planned Parenthood, in the most recently released video, clearly says that abortion procedures are manipulated to maximize the harvestable tissue.

Spence, when a liberal group released the video of Romney's idiotic remark about 47% of Americans not wanting to work, were you equally concerned about how the footage was obtained? Or are you selective about when you apply this concern?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Shocker.

The lady from Planned Parenthood, in the most recently released video, clearly says that abortion procedures are manipulated to maximize the harvestable tissue.
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).

Spence, when a liberal group released the video of Romney's idiotic remark about 47% of Americans not wanting to work, were you equally concerned about how the footage was obtained? Or are you selective about when you apply this concern?

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.

[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

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.

You are correct on this by the way, and it's disgraceful. I went to high school with, and played tennis with, Wayne Pacelle, who is President of the Humane Society of the United States, and a great guy. I love animals Paul, love them, and you bring up a good point here, and one of the rare issues on which I side with the liberals (death penalty, gay marriage being the others).

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You are correct on this by the way, and it's disgraceful. I went to high school with, and played tennis with, Wayne Pacelle, who is President of the Humane Society of the United States, and a great guy. I love animals Paul, love them, and you bring up a good point here, and one of the rare issues on which I side with the liberals (death penalty, gay marriage being the others).

I know Wayne from a past life (although not good) also. prior to the Humane Society.