Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts

[DrDoomNGloom]

Embryonic stem cells
Embryonic stem cells are obtained from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst, a mainly hollow ball of cells that, in the human, forms three to five days after an egg cell is fertilized by a sperm. A human blastocyst is about the size of the dot above this “i.”

In normal development, the cells inside the blastocyst divide for a short time, then begin developing into more specialized cells that give rise to the entire body—all of our tissues and organs. Scientists can extract the inner cell mass and grow these in the lab. These are embryonic stem cells, and under the right conditions, they can grow indefinitely in the lab.

Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can give rise to every cell type in the fully formed body, but not the placenta and umbilical cord. These cells are incredibly valuable because they provide a renewable resource for studying normal development and disease, and for testing drugs and other therapies. Human embryonic stem cells have been derived primarily from blastocysts created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) for assisted reproduction that were no longer needed.

Tissue-specific stem cells
Tissue-specific stem cells (also referred to as somatic or adult stem cells) are more specialized than embryonic stem cells. Typically, these stem cells can generate different cell types for the specific tissue or organ in which they live.

For example, blood-forming (or hematopoietic) stem cells in the bone marrow can give rise to red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets. However, blood-forming stem cells don’t generate liver or lung or brain cells, and stem cells in other tissues and organs don’t generate red or white blood cells or platelets.

Some tissues and organs within your body contain small caches of tissue-specific stem cells whose job it is to replace cells from that tissue that are lost in normal day-to-day living or in injury, such as those in your skin, blood, and the lining of your gut.

Tissue-specific stem cells can be difficult to find in the human body, and they don’t seem to self-renew in culture as easily as embryonic stem cells do. However, study of these cells has increased our general knowledge about normal development, what changes in aging, and what happens with injury and disease.
Types of Stem Cells

 

[idb]

Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.

You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?

The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??

It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.

Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.

Neither.
You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.

Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.

It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.

Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.

Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.

And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.

Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.

 

[idb]

Embryonic stem cells
Embryonic stem cells are obtained from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst, a mainly hollow ball of cells that, in the human, forms three to five days after an egg cell is fertilized by a sperm. A human blastocyst is about the size of the dot above this “i.”

In normal development, the cells inside the blastocyst divide for a short time, then begin developing into more specialized cells that give rise to the entire body—all of our tissues and organs. Scientists can extract the inner cell mass and grow these in the lab. These are embryonic stem cells, and under the right conditions, they can grow indefinitely in the lab.

Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can give rise to every cell type in the fully formed body, but not the placenta and umbilical cord. These cells are incredibly valuable because they provide a renewable resource for studying normal development and disease, and for testing drugs and other therapies. Human embryonic stem cells have been derived primarily from blastocysts created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) for assisted reproduction that were no longer needed.

Tissue-specific stem cells
Tissue-specific stem cells (also referred to as somatic or adult stem cells) are more specialized than embryonic stem cells. Typically, these stem cells can generate different cell types for the specific tissue or organ in which they live.

For example, blood-forming (or hematopoietic) stem cells in the bone marrow can give rise to red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets. However, blood-forming stem cells don’t generate liver or lung or brain cells, and stem cells in other tissues and organs don’t generate red or white blood cells or platelets.

Some tissues and organs within your body contain small caches of tissue-specific stem cells whose job it is to replace cells from that tissue that are lost in normal day-to-day living or in injury, such as those in your skin, blood, and the lining of your gut.

Tissue-specific stem cells can be difficult to find in the human body, and they don’t seem to self-renew in culture as easily as embryonic stem cells do. However, study of these cells has increased our general knowledge about normal development, what changes in aging, and what happens with injury and disease.
Types of Stem Cells

Golly...well done!

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Like I said, you are an ignorant fucking moron.

No I don't think your knowing your address is relevant, just another ignorant example by a small ignorant man.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.

You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?

The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??

It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.

Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.

Neither.
You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.

Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.

It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.

Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.

Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.

And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.

Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.

Go ahead double down on the ignorant fucking retarded moron shit, stupid .....................

What do you think they are exchanging for cash, shit head??

 

[idb]

Like I said, you are an ignorant fucking moron.

No I don't think your knowing your address is relevant, just another ignorant example by a small ignorant man.

So, how does knowing the difference between embryonic and tissue-specific stem cells make you more or less intelligent?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Embryonic stem cells
Embryonic stem cells are obtained from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst, a mainly hollow ball of cells that, in the human, forms three to five days after an egg cell is fertilized by a sperm. A human blastocyst is about the size of the dot above this “i.”

In normal development, the cells inside the blastocyst divide for a short time, then begin developing into more specialized cells that give rise to the entire body—all of our tissues and organs. Scientists can extract the inner cell mass and grow these in the lab. These are embryonic stem cells, and under the right conditions, they can grow indefinitely in the lab.

Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can give rise to every cell type in the fully formed body, but not the placenta and umbilical cord. These cells are incredibly valuable because they provide a renewable resource for studying normal development and disease, and for testing drugs and other therapies. Human embryonic stem cells have been derived primarily from blastocysts created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) for assisted reproduction that were no longer needed.

Tissue-specific stem cells
Tissue-specific stem cells (also referred to as somatic or adult stem cells) are more specialized than embryonic stem cells. Typically, these stem cells can generate different cell types for the specific tissue or organ in which they live.

For example, blood-forming (or hematopoietic) stem cells in the bone marrow can give rise to red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets. However, blood-forming stem cells don’t generate liver or lung or brain cells, and stem cells in other tissues and organs don’t generate red or white blood cells or platelets.

Some tissues and organs within your body contain small caches of tissue-specific stem cells whose job it is to replace cells from that tissue that are lost in normal day-to-day living or in injury, such as those in your skin, blood, and the lining of your gut.

Tissue-specific stem cells can be difficult to find in the human body, and they don’t seem to self-renew in culture as easily as embryonic stem cells do. However, study of these cells has increased our general knowledge about normal development, what changes in aging, and what happens with injury and disease.
Types of Stem Cells

Golly...well done!

Made you look like an ignorant fucking moron, yeah go on and brag to all your friends about it.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Like I said, you are an ignorant fucking moron.

No I don't think your knowing your address is relevant, just another ignorant example by a small ignorant man.

So, how does knowing the difference between embryonic and tissue-specific stem cells make you more or less intelligent?

Means I at least have a clue about the shit you are fucking telling moronic lies about .............

Too fucking stupid to understand, how fucking funny and pathetic.

 

[Faun]

Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.

You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?

The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??

It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.

Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.

Neither.
You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.

Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.

It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.

Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.

Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.

And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.

Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.

He's such a dork.

 

[idb]

Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.

You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?

The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??

It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.

Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.

Neither.
You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.

Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.

It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.

Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.

Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.

And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.

Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.

Go ahead double down on the ignorant fucking retarded moron shit, stupid .....................

What do you think they are exchanging for cash, shit head??

Postage.
Packaging.
And ripping those little bodies apart doesn't happen by itself you know...there must be a cost in the use of rippers, saws, grapplers and all the other necessary instruments.

 

[Faun]

Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.

You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?

The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??

It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.

Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.

Neither.
You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.

Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.

It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.

Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.

Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.

And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.

Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.

Go ahead double down on the ignorant fucking retarded moron shit, stupid .....................

What do you think they are exchanging for cash, shit head??

The cost of services.

 

[idb]

Like I said, you are an ignorant fucking moron.

No I don't think your knowing your address is relevant, just another ignorant example by a small ignorant man.

So, how does knowing the difference between embryonic and tissue-specific stem cells make you more or less intelligent?

Means I at least have a clue about the shit you are fucking telling moronic lies about .............

Too fucking stupid to understand, how fucking funny and pathetic.

What have I said that would be materially different if one type of tissue was being spoken of instead of another?
I thought they were all bits of baby.

Like I said...you're just feeling a little bit special because you've learnt something and you wanted to show it off.

 

[idb]

Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.

You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?

The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??

It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.

Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.

Neither.
You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.

Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.

It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.

Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.

Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.

And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.

Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.

He's such a dork.

I like him.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm not going to rehash the scientific and medical facts yet again in this post (or maybe it was another post, but who cares) when it is clear /you/ made up your mind on how it "should be" based upon /your personal/ beliefs. Go hunt out my previous many many posts on this subject if you want to evidence any curiosity about what I base my beliefs on.

Bottom line is that my beliefs differ from yours and you are not automatically right because you say so. Neither am I, which is why I said, change the law, don't lie about it.

The court happens to believe /my/ opinion is right at this time. If they change that opinion then so be it, but they're sure as fuck not going to do so based on videos that they've already ruled were /lies/ - that would be why they fucking banned putting anymore out.

Welcome to America, where the majority and law rule, not /your/ feelings alone. Yes?

Lying baby killer....the majority despises PP and the abortion game, and the courts did not "rule" that the videos were lies.

Lying to protect the sacred right of infanticide and abuse of women. You are a stellar person indeed....

Further more, you aren't going to *rehash* the science and the fact because the science and the facts don't support the disgusting practice. Science and facts work against you, so I can understand your reluctance to *rehash* what never existed in the first place. At least not on your side.

Whoooa! I directed you to my post which clearly refutes this "baby killer for profit horseshit" and you responded to me that you are not interested enough to look. THEN...you post this! There is something wrong with this picture! What is wrong with you?!!

I don't see a post of yours in the quote you posted.

I will be glad to let you tell my your lies about why planned parenthood is not selling fetal organ tissue.

Where is that defense??

Let's get the party started, I will not repeat anything and the first to sling an ad hominem is the looser.

Whenever you get ready ball is in your court.

When asked a question, ignoring or refusing to answer that question will be a point against you.

Clean and fair if you are intelligent enough to make your points and refute mine.

No weasling, no hiding, first lie you are caught bold face in, you loose.

How big are your balls bitch??

And who the fuck are you to declare that these are what the rules will be, not to mention changing the subject and ignoring the actual issue which is, whatever they are doing with tissue IS NOT ILLEGAL or unethical and that the witch hunt against them is harming women and impeding research. Refute that bitch!

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Yep that gets you relegated to the cyber shithole of fucking morons guarded by the dreaded ignore button.

You are a fucking troll, an ignored fucking troll.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not going to rehash the scientific and medical facts yet again in this post (or maybe it was another post, but who cares) when it is clear /you/ made up your mind on how it "should be" based upon /your personal/ beliefs. Go hunt out my previous many many posts on this subject if you want to evidence any curiosity about what I base my beliefs on.

Bottom line is that my beliefs differ from yours and you are not automatically right because you say so. Neither am I, which is why I said, change the law, don't lie about it.

The court happens to believe /my/ opinion is right at this time. If they change that opinion then so be it, but they're sure as fuck not going to do so based on videos that they've already ruled were /lies/ - that would be why they fucking banned putting anymore out.

Welcome to America, where the majority and law rule, not /your/ feelings alone. Yes?

Lying baby killer....the majority despises PP and the abortion game, and the courts did not "rule" that the videos were lies.

Lying to protect the sacred right of infanticide and abuse of women. You are a stellar person indeed....

Further more, you aren't going to *rehash* the science and the fact because the science and the facts don't support the disgusting practice. Science and facts work against you, so I can understand your reluctance to *rehash* what never existed in the first place. At least not on your side.

Whoooa! I directed you to my post which clearly refutes this "baby killer for profit horseshit" and you responded to me that you are not interested enough to look. THEN...you post this! There is something wrong with this picture! What is wrong with you?!!

I don't see a post of yours in the quote you posted.

I will be glad to let you tell my your lies about why planned parenthood is not selling fetal organ tissue.

Where is that defense??

Let's get the party started, I will not repeat anything and the first to sling an ad hominem is the looser.

Whenever you get ready ball is in your court.

When asked a question, ignoring or refusing to answer that question will be a point against you.

Clean and fair if you are intelligent enough to make your points and refute mine.

No weasling, no hiding, first lie you are caught bold face in, you loose.

How big are your balls bitch??

And who the fuck are you to declare that these are what the rules will be, not to mention changing the subject and ignoring the actual issue which is, whatever they are doing with tissue IS NOT ILLEGAL or unethical and that the witch hunt against them is harming women and impeding research. Refute that bitch!

Look more baby killing lies.

 

[koshergrl]

Yep that gets you relegated to the cyber shithole of fucking morons guarded by the dreaded ignore button.

You are a fucking troll, an ignored fucking troll.

Yup.

 

[sakinago]

Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?

WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?

Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.

You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) IN 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born IN 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?

Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.

I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.

There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.

An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.

Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.

27 week PREMIE has about an 80% of making it. Now numbers on miscarriages and such are difficult to give just one number, bc of factors like has the mother had a miscarriage before and etc.

But if you have different numbers then by all means post them and apply them to Sherri Tiavo, see if it's ok to kill her off. We can even do a poll on usmb see who thinks it's ok to for the husband to let her starve to death. So far all you have done is try to split hairs on the numbers in this scenario, claim they're crazy, but not post why they're crazy. So be my guest. At least winter born could actually make intelligent arguments, I think I poked holes in those arguments, but they were based on intelligence, not splitting hairs on numbers without rebuttals

 

[sakinago]

WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?

Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.

You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) IN 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born IN 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?

Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.

I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.

There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.

An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.

Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.

sad sak is confusing maturity of infant born premature with being born alive.

Explain how this is the case arist 2 chat . What am I saying that is wrong? Where are the holes in my demonstration of the inconsistency of the left?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.

I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.

There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.

An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.

Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.

sad sak is confusing maturity of infant born premature with being born alive.

pre mature infants are usually born alive, what is confusing about that??

You seem to be trying to make a point, but your rambling statement is indicative you lack the proper English skills to convey that thought.