Remember that planned parenthood video ?

[Jim in CT]

Can someone explain how the video was "edited" in dishonest fashion?

The majority of the controversy surrounding the videos, was the suggestion that PP was taking money for selling baby body parts. Since PP subsequently came out and said that "we will no longer take money in exchange for baby body parts", isn't that a pretty good indication that they were, in fact, previously taking money in exchange for baby body parts? Why would PP announce that they were no longer engaging in an act, if they weren't doing it to begin with?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Can someone explain how the video was "edited" in dishonest fashion?

The majority of the controversy surrounding the videos, was the suggestion that PP was taking money for selling baby body parts. Since PP subsequently came out and said that "we will no longer take money in exchange for baby body parts", isn't that a pretty good indication that they were, in fact, previously taking money in exchange for baby body parts? Why would PP announce that they were no longer engaging in an act, if they weren't doing it to begin with?

Really?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Really?

Yes, really. I gather that one (or more?) of the videos implied something about babies born alive, and that was heavily edited, and they should get called out for that. But PP was absolutely selling baby body parts. I don't think they broke any laws, but they were trading baby body parts for money. That's true, is it not?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't think they broke any laws, but they were trading baby body parts for money. That's true, is it not?

Not for profit. They were just getting a reimbursement on handling the tissue. The actually dollars are so low it looks like it's almost at a loss.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not for profit. They were just getting a reimbursement on handling the tissue. The actually dollars are so low it looks like it's almost at a loss.

Did I say for profit?

They were exchanging baby body parts for money. That may well be legal. But it's offensive to enough Americans, that PP announced that they would stop doing it. Which tells me, that PP openly admitted to doing that which the videos purported they were doing.

"it looks like it's almost at a loss"

Have you ever, ever, EVER engaged in specualtion that didn't cast liberalism in a favorable light? Can you ever be objective?

Selling baby body parts, as long as one only breaks even on the deal, is legal. That doesn't make it ethical, particularly in light of the ghoulish casual nature with which the PP sellers of baby body parts laughed it all off over a nice salad and glass of red wine. That's what sickened a lot of people. I am truly sorry if that doesn't serve your personal agenda, but that's what happened.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Did I say for profit?

They were exchanging baby body parts for money. That may well be legal. But it's offensive to enough Americans, that PP announced that they would stop doing it. Which tells me, that PP openly admitted to doing that which the videos purported they were doing.

No, it means they're being reimbursed for storage, shipping etc...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, it means they're being reimbursed for storage, shipping etc...

The things you choose to dig in on, never cease to amaze.

What were they storing and shipping? Oranges, or baby body parts?

And they were making a big joke about it, on tape, over expensive lunches and red wine. The PP staff may well have been operating within the law, but they came across as absolute, monstrous ghouls. Which you'd have to be, to support the eugenic PP mission statement, just ask Margaret Sanger.