Anti-abortion activists indicted for undercover videos smearing Planned Parenthood

[easyt65]

You asked me that about Reagan. The same answer applies...meanwhile you still demonstrate you are more concerned with who / what party you can blame for wasting tax dollars rather than the fact it is being done.

More importantly, as it pertains to this thread, you have already proved you believe that tax payers should pay for elective surgeries for people who refuse to accept personal responsibility and/or who don't want to be burdened by the consequences of their own choices / actions.

 

[Dhara]

This topic is nearly impossible to discuss without things turning ugly.

Good hearted people come from both sides in this debate of reproductive rights and whether fanatics who distort the truth deserve to suffer the consequences.

I have to continually remind myself there are human beings on both sides who are committed to their positions as morally correct, (for them).

 

[Vandalshandle]

People do take responsibility for their actions. Some choose an abortion as the most responsible choice they can make. I don't expect you to understand that. You're too busy judging other people's lives and wanting to insert your will into their bodies.

Says the people telling me what I can eat and drink.

because you having to buy two 15 oz sugar drinks instead of one 30 oz drink is like women being able to make their own moral choices?

Hilarious. You want to tell me what size soda I can buy and she has no choices either.
View attachment 61224

How about the morning after pill? That's abortion to you too, isn't it?

Stick to why people are happy to see her dead.
View attachment 61225

 

[Dhara]

The tax payer argument in this thread leaves me cold. ALL of us pay taxes and have to support services that we don't agree with.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Everyone agrees that the videos are real. That's not the controversy. Did they have a right to sell the baby parts? Not that the transaction didn't happen.

A Right to harvest tissue from donated tissue and organs?

No, the federal government could pass a law tomorrow banning the transfer for human tissue.

Is it legal to harvest donated tissue and organs and recover costs associated with collection, cateloging, storage and transfer?

Yes. I hope you never have anyone in your family that needs an organ transplant, skin grafts for burns, or medial treatments made possible through research using donated tissue and organs.

>>>>

 

[easyt65]

Actually the issue is easy (no pun intended) to discuss. Groups pay politicians and others to protect PP, which has been accomplished. PP has been cleared, the film maker has been charged, and things will return to how they were before these videos were released.

(I just realized how similar this is, in part, to 'Benghazi'. Hillary/PP has been 'cleared', the film was blaned, and the film maker was accused / arrested....priceless...if you have a sense of humor.)

 

[easyt65]

WW, if I ever need such medical help I personally would rather die than to have someone murder a baby capable of surviving outside the womb, chop that baby into pieces, and then sell the parts to anyone for cash or a Lanborghini in order to get that medical help to save my life.

....but that's just me.

 

[WorldWatcher]

WW, if I ever need such medical help I personally would rather die than to have someone murder a baby capable of surviving outside the womb, chop that baby into pieces, and then sell the parts to anyone for cash or a Lanborghini in order to get that medical help to save my life.

....but that's just me.

Neither would I. But that isn't what was going on.

The abortion occurred either way. The tissue could go to help others or end up in the medical waste bin. The tissue was donated and the only cost was those involved with collection, cataloging, storage and transfer, last I checked about 10 states have investigated PP and not a single one has found any wrong doing on their reimbursement for expenses.

The "cash and Lamborghini" business is just a lame attempt at the appeal to emotion fallacy.


>>>>

 

[Faun]

You asked me that about Reagan. The same answer applies...meanwhile you still demonstrate you are more concerned with who / what party you can blame for wasting tax dollars rather than the fact it is being done.

More importantly, as it pertains to this thread, you have already proved you believe that tax payers should pay for elective surgeries for people who refuse to accept personal responsibility and/or who don't want to be burdened by the consequences of their own choices / actions.

And you didn't answer about Reagan either.

Do you think Bush started handing out cell phones in 2008 to buy votes?

Yes or no?

As far as tax funded abortions... other than the 1% of rape/incest cases, you have failed miserably to prove they are tax funded. You posted a link to a newsmax article that is full of broken links as evidence; and a quote from an aclj article with was based on a GAO report you know nothing about and which doesn't actually support the article you referenced.

 

[Dhara]

Everyone agrees that the videos are real. That's not the controversy. Did they have a right to sell the baby parts? Not that the transaction didn't happen.

A Right to harvest tissue from donated tissue and organs?

No, the federal government could pass a law tomorrow banning the transfer for human tissue.

Is it legal to harvest donated tissue and organs and recover costs associated with collection, cateloging, storage and transfer?

Yes. I hope you never have anyone in your family that needs an organ transplant, skin grafts for burns, or medial treatments made possible through research using donated tissue and organs.

>>>>

Plenty of childhood diseases are a thing of the past because of testing vaccines on fetal tissue. There is no moral absolute.

 

[easyt65]

Can you read, Faun? Obviously NOT because I said ANYONE who wastes tax dollars giving phones to people who don't need them is buying votes and fleecing tax payers.

Still worrying more about WHO is doing it, Faun...

 

[Dhara]

Cell lines derived from aborted fetal tissue have been fairly commonplace in research and medicine since the creation in the 1960s of the WI-38 cell strain, which was derived at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and MRC-5, which came from a Medical Research Council laboratory in London (see Nature 498, 422–426; 2013). Viruses multiply readily in these cells, and they are used to manufacture many globally important vaccines, including those against measles, rubella, rabies, chicken pox, shingles and hepatitis A.

Companies have shipped at least 5.8 billion vaccines made with these two cell lines which, with others, have become standard laboratory tools in studies of ageing and drug toxicity. (Research with such lines is not covered by US regulations governing the use of fresh fetal cells and tissue nor captured in the NIH database.) In the past 25 years, fetal cell lines have been used in a roster of medical advances, including the production of a blockbuster arthritis drug and therapeutic proteins that fight cystic fibrosis and haemophilia.
The truth about fetal tissue research

 

[Dhara]

Ethical controversy over transplantation of human fetal tissue has arisen because the source of tissue is induced abortions. Opposition to such transplants has been based on various arguments, including the following: rightful informed consent cannot be obtained for use of fetal tissue from induced abortions, and fetal tissue transplantation might result in an increase in the number of abortions. These arguments were not accepted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel. The majority opinion of the panel stated that abortion and fetal tissue use are entirely separate issues, and that tissue use is ethically acceptable because it can be morally insulated from the issue of abortion. In support of this view, panel members and others have replied to the arguments put forward by opponents of fetal tissue use. However, replies to the two arguments mentioned above have been unsatisfactory, and the shortcomings of those replies are identified herein. Examination of the arguments pro and con suggests that fetal tissue use cannot be completely insulated from the issue of abortion. Thus, in seeking an ethical justification for fetal tissue transplantation we must consider reasons other than those put forward by the NIH panel. In this paper it is argued that whatever wrong is involved in using fetal tissue from induced abortions must be balanced against the benefits for patients, and it is on this basis that fetal tissue transplantation can be ethically justified.
Fetal tissue transplantation: can it be morally insulated from abortion?

 

[Faun]

Actually the issue is easy (no pun intended) to discuss. Groups pay politicians and others to protect PP, which has been accomplished. PP has been cleared, the film maker has been charged, and things will return to how they were before these videos were released.

(I just realized how similar this is, in part, to 'Benghazi'. Hillary/PP has been 'cleared', the film was blaned, and the film maker was accused / arrested....priceless...if you have a sense of humor.)

Well things might not return to as before for everyone. The film makers are facing some serious jail time.

 

[bripat9643]

When did women get the right to force me to pay for their abortions?

you are aware that the federal government doesn't pay for abortions, right?

It most certainly does pay for abortions, dingbat.

say what, ignoramus?

you never hear of the hyde amendment?

Hyde Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

damn, there's no cure for your stupid.

Congress is ignoring the Hyde Amendment, sort of like Obama ignores the Constitution.

Where?
The law makes exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother.

Congress is giving 600 million to PP to perform abortions, for one thing.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

 

[Dhara]

10 Arguments For Abortion

Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb.

The concept of personhood is different from the concept of human life. Human life occurs at conception, but fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder?

Adoption is not an alternative to abortion, because it remains the woman's choice whether or not to give her child up for adoption. Statistics show that very few women who give birth choose to give up their babies - less than 3% of white unmarried women and less than 2% of black unmarried women.

Abortion is a safe medical procedure. The vast majority of women - 88% - who have an abortion do so in their first trimester. Medical abortions have less than 0.5% risk of serious complications and do not affect a woman's health or future ability to become pregnant or give birth.

In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim. Often a woman is too afraid to speak up or is unaware she is pregnant, thus the morning after pill is ineffective in these situations.

Abortion is not used as a form of contraception. Pregnancy can occur even with responsible contraceptive use. Only 8% of women who have abortions do not use any form of birth control, and that is due more to individual carelessness than to the availability of abortion.

The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?

Taxpayer dollars are used to enable poor women to access the same medical services as rich women, and abortion is one of these services. Funding abortion is no different from funding a war in the Mideast. For those who are opposed, the place to express outrage is in the voting booth.

Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave of school; receive inadequate prenatal care; rely on public assistance to raise a child; develop health problems; or end up divorced.

Like any other difficult situation, abortion creates stress. Yet the American Psychological Association found that stress was greatest prior to an abortion, and that there was no evidence of post-abortion syndrome

 

[Dhara]

10 Common Arguments For and Against Abortion

 

[easyt65]

I provided reports proving Insurance companies, using tax dollars, paid for abortions that were outside the Hyde Amendment restrictions. I can't help you refuse to accept that.

Instead you do Alynski proud by attempting to point fingers at Reagan and Bush than actually look at how the government fleeces tax payers. The worst example of this is NOT abortions but the nearly $1 trillion dollar Obama failed Stinulus bill that contained iver 7,000 pieces if self/party-serving DNC-ONLY oueces of pork that took money out of Middle Class tax payers to go towards, anong other thibgs, Alcoholic Chinese prostitutes and gay Argentinians.

You prove you are as concerned with our politicians' charged responsibility of being good stewards of OUR money as the politicians who are violating that trust. You are more interested in making sure the opposing political party is blamed.

You have proven you care nothing about personal accountability, whether it is someone who wants anyone else to pay for their abortion, someone who wants to pay for yet another illegitimate child, or a pokitician who uses tax dollars to study gay Argentinians.

Try to convince someone else otherwise of your BS - it doesn't float here.

 

[bripat9643]

GAO:
'...though Planned Parenthood—the organization performing 40% of America’s (reported) abortions every year—claims federal funding does not directly fund abortion, it’s not feasible nor believable that a group performing hundreds of thousands of abortions annually could prevent cross contamination.'

If you actually think PP divides their different sources of money into separate accounts and ensures that each abortion paid for is only paid for from the account marked 'NOT Tax Dollars' you're an idiot.

It's called accounting fool.
Do you suppose federal money should be orange so it won't be confused with the
" bad" money spent on abortion?

It's called three card Monty that only fools suckers like you. All the money goes into the same pot. There's no way to distinguish a dollar intended for abortions from one that is not.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

 

[easyt65]

I predict the film maker gets off with minimum pubishmwnt as the real objective of 'blaming the messenger' and clearing PP has been achieved.