Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Joe doesn't know AT LEAST 2 things:Not as badly as we are.Look again. The European Union is failing.Actually, I think most libs would be happier if everyone had a remunerative job that put food on the table. I'd be all for a federal jobs program that employed every able bodied American at a living wage. You know, like the Europeans do.
Yes, the law exists to prevent unscrupulous doctors from altering treatment for the sake of extracting tissue that has monetary value. Even you should see the conflict of interest inherent in such a practice....suddenly the law, and safety of the mother, is secondary to the resource inside of her. And suddenly they have a motive for encouraging late term abortion...or lying to women about the age of their babies, or the viability of their baby.someone posted the law earlier, it might have been you? But my question about the law on not changing the organ donor's treatment, is so that Doctors do not take the organ donor off any of their life support, or medically treat them differently than a person dying who is not donating organs etc.... in other words, the dying organ donor's death would not be expedited or changed due to them being organ donors...The law was already linked somewhere.
And I didn't complain that the procedural methods of abortion were in violation of the law. The reality is that both the doctors talked about CHANGING the procedure in order to FACILITATE organ harvest. And THAT is against the law. You can't change a procedure for the sake of selling tissue or for any purpose except safety.
And the procedure they were choosing to change to was partial birth abortion...which is illegal.
IS this law applicable to a fetus being aborted?
someone posted the law earlier, it might have been you? But my question about the law on not changing the organ donor's treatment, is so that Doctors do not take the organ donor off any of their life support, or medically treat them differently than a person dying who is not donating organs etc.... in other words, the dying organ donor's death would not be expedited or changed due to them being organ donors...The law was already linked somewhere.
And I didn't complain that the procedural methods of abortion were in violation of the law. The reality is that both the doctors talked about CHANGING the procedure in order to FACILITATE organ harvest. And THAT is against the law. You can't change a procedure for the sake of selling tissue or for any purpose except safety.
And the procedure they were choosing to change to was partial birth abortion...which is illegal.
IS this law applicable to a fetus being aborted?
Link?someone posted the law earlier, it might have been you? But my question about the law on not changing the organ donor's treatment, is so that Doctors do not take the organ donor off any of their life support, or medically treat them differently than a person dying who is not donating organs etc.... in other words, the dying organ donor's death would not be expedited or changed due to them being organ donors...The law was already linked somewhere.
And I didn't complain that the procedural methods of abortion were in violation of the law. The reality is that both the doctors talked about CHANGING the procedure in order to FACILITATE organ harvest. And THAT is against the law. You can't change a procedure for the sake of selling tissue or for any purpose except safety.
And the procedure they were choosing to change to was partial birth abortion...which is illegal.
IS this law applicable to a fetus being aborted?
If left up to you libs, women will get paid to get pregnant, so they can abort the pregnancy and then harvest the babies organs... You people are sick
You marching orders may soon come, if radical leftists and their clueless followers get their wayLink?someone posted the law earlier, it might have been you? But my question about the law on not changing the organ donor's treatment, is so that Doctors do not take the organ donor off any of their life support, or medically treat them differently than a person dying who is not donating organs etc.... in other words, the dying organ donor's death would not be expedited or changed due to them being organ donors...The law was already linked somewhere.
And I didn't complain that the procedural methods of abortion were in violation of the law. The reality is that both the doctors talked about CHANGING the procedure in order to FACILITATE organ harvest. And THAT is against the law. You can't change a procedure for the sake of selling tissue or for any purpose except safety.
And the procedure they were choosing to change to was partial birth abortion...which is illegal.
IS this law applicable to a fetus being aborted?
If left up to you libs, women will get paid to get pregnant, so they can abort the pregnancy and then harvest the babies organs... You people are sick
There was no negotiation. There was a discussion where the lying pieces of shit tried to get the doctor to discuss money for the tissue, and she refused because they do not sell tissue.You say that is what it is for but I don't see expenses spoken about in the video. What I see is a negotiation over price.The producers of the video, like you, are lying pieces of shit. It is not illegal to use fetal tissue in medical research. Since the video was taken a year ago and no one has been arrested to charged, pretty clear who is the dumbass here, Lassie."In the U.S., the use of fetal tissue is regulated by law to prevent abuse. For example, women who donate their aborted fetuses for research are required to give their free and informed consent, and must not be asked to donate until after they have already decided to have an abortion. Fears that women are being coerced into abortions solely to obtain fetal tissue are irrational and unfounded.Just wait until Walker is elected President. He's already eliminated all state funding for Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin.
In Canada, no laws exist at present on the handling and use of fetal tissue (a law is currently on the drawing board), but strict ethical guidelines are enforced by several independent research councils. Research funding is provided only to individuals and institutions that certify compliance with the guidelines. These cover much the same ground as the U.S. laws, including the requirement for informed consent from women without interfering with their abortion decision, and the obtainment of tissue through non-commercial means.
The only allegation currently under investigation by a U.S. Congressional committee is that two biomedical companies, acting as third parties in the collection of fetal tissue, are charging inflated handling fees to research institutions -- more than what is needed to cover costs. Let there be no doubt as to the unanimous pro-choice position on this -- if any type of illegal activity is happening -- and nothing has been proved as yet -- let's root it out and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. [Ed note: In August 2001, these two companies and a Kansas abortion clinic were cleared of any wrongdoing, after an FBI investigation concluded no illegal activities had occurred].
As for the vicious gossip about doctors killing babies to "harvest" their organs, such hearsay is more suited to publication in the Weekly World News. These rumours originate from a single, anonymous source -- "Kelly," who claims to be a former worker at an organ donation company in Maryland. The scenes she describes constitute criminal behaviour, and a gross violation of medical ethics. If her claims are true, why is she hiding behind a pseudonym, instead of helping bring the perpetrators to justice? Why did she go to Life Dynamics with her "evidence", instead of the police? These stories and their source are simply not credible, and abortion providers are outraged by even the suggestion of such barbaric practices. [Ed note: In March 2000, in front of a Congressional committee, the stories of "Kelly" and Life Dynamics were completely discredited—"Kelly" was actually Lawrence Dean Alberty, a paid spy for Life Dynamics, and he and LDI apparently fabricated much of the "evidence".]"
More vicious lies from the Irish Lassie.
The video says otherwise, dumb ass.
It is not illegal to donate tissue or body parts, including aborted fetus, for medical research. The cost to remove, preserve, or transport can be chaged in the arrangment.
the $100 is not for the sale but the costs for the expenses of the tissue.
The transaction being discussed is not illegal, it is not an actual "sale" but the costs for the expenses
Once the fetal tissue is removed it is not longer up to the mother what happens to the tissue. It up to the clinc/hospital to dispose or donate for research.
Tell me, how does costs for expenses change in a negotiation? Costs are static - there would be no negotiation.
Also, the last part of your statement is blatantly false. It is NOT up to the clinic what happens to the tissue.
Do you really want us to post the disgusting displays of PP "I Wanna Lamboirghini" aka "Miss The Crunchy Bits" and "Gourmet Salad Nocotala"? You do have a strong stomach. Not surprising, considering what you advocate.Link?someone posted the law earlier, it might have been you? But my question about the law on not changing the organ donor's treatment, is so that Doctors do not take the organ donor off any of their life support, or medically treat them differently than a person dying who is not donating organs etc.... in other words, the dying organ donor's death would not be expedited or changed due to them being organ donors...The law was already linked somewhere.
And I didn't complain that the procedural methods of abortion were in violation of the law. The reality is that both the doctors talked about CHANGING the procedure in order to FACILITATE organ harvest. And THAT is against the law. You can't change a procedure for the sake of selling tissue or for any purpose except safety.
And the procedure they were choosing to change to was partial birth abortion...which is illegal.
IS this law applicable to a fetus being aborted?
If left up to you libs, women will get paid to get pregnant, so they can abort the pregnancy and then harvest the babies organs... You people are sick
What you never eat stir fry and rice?Your argument is screwed this week. Lots of buy one get one deals and 2/1.00 deals on proteins.
....
Shrimp (5.99 lb)
)
Shrimp? Are you fucking kidding me?
30-100 dollars, according to Nocatola. Lowball $100, according to "I Wanna Lambourghini". Enough to do a little better than breaking even, smile wink, Nocatola said.There was no negotiation. There was a discussion where the lying pieces of shit tried to get the doctor to discuss money for the tissue, and she refused because they do not sell tissue.You say that is what it is for but I don't see expenses spoken about in the video. What I see is a negotiation over price.The producers of the video, like you, are lying pieces of shit. It is not illegal to use fetal tissue in medical research. Since the video was taken a year ago and no one has been arrested to charged, pretty clear who is the dumbass here, Lassie."In the U.S., the use of fetal tissue is regulated by law to prevent abuse. For example, women who donate their aborted fetuses for research are required to give their free and informed consent, and must not be asked to donate until after they have already decided to have an abortion. Fears that women are being coerced into abortions solely to obtain fetal tissue are irrational and unfounded.
In Canada, no laws exist at present on the handling and use of fetal tissue (a law is currently on the drawing board), but strict ethical guidelines are enforced by several independent research councils. Research funding is provided only to individuals and institutions that certify compliance with the guidelines. These cover much the same ground as the U.S. laws, including the requirement for informed consent from women without interfering with their abortion decision, and the obtainment of tissue through non-commercial means.
The only allegation currently under investigation by a U.S. Congressional committee is that two biomedical companies, acting as third parties in the collection of fetal tissue, are charging inflated handling fees to research institutions -- more than what is needed to cover costs. Let there be no doubt as to the unanimous pro-choice position on this -- if any type of illegal activity is happening -- and nothing has been proved as yet -- let's root it out and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. [Ed note: In August 2001, these two companies and a Kansas abortion clinic were cleared of any wrongdoing, after an FBI investigation concluded no illegal activities had occurred].
As for the vicious gossip about doctors killing babies to "harvest" their organs, such hearsay is more suited to publication in the Weekly World News. These rumours originate from a single, anonymous source -- "Kelly," who claims to be a former worker at an organ donation company in Maryland. The scenes she describes constitute criminal behaviour, and a gross violation of medical ethics. If her claims are true, why is she hiding behind a pseudonym, instead of helping bring the perpetrators to justice? Why did she go to Life Dynamics with her "evidence", instead of the police? These stories and their source are simply not credible, and abortion providers are outraged by even the suggestion of such barbaric practices. [Ed note: In March 2000, in front of a Congressional committee, the stories of "Kelly" and Life Dynamics were completely discredited—"Kelly" was actually Lawrence Dean Alberty, a paid spy for Life Dynamics, and he and LDI apparently fabricated much of the "evidence".]"
More vicious lies from the Irish Lassie.
The video says otherwise, dumb ass.
It is not illegal to donate tissue or body parts, including aborted fetus, for medical research. The cost to remove, preserve, or transport can be chaged in the arrangment.
the $100 is not for the sale but the costs for the expenses of the tissue.
The transaction being discussed is not illegal, it is not an actual "sale" but the costs for the expenses
Once the fetal tissue is removed it is not longer up to the mother what happens to the tissue. It up to the clinc/hospital to dispose or donate for research.
Tell me, how does costs for expenses change in a negotiation? Costs are static - there would be no negotiation.
Also, the last part of your statement is blatantly false. It is NOT up to the clinic what happens to the tissue.
Ten days later, 115 pages of posts, and you still lie. What a disgusting piece of shitbyou are..30-100 dollars, according to Nocatola. Lowball $100, according to "I Wanna Lambourghini". Enough to do a little better than breaking even, smile wink, Nocatola said.There was no negotiation. There was a discussion where the lying pieces of shit tried to get the doctor to discuss money for the tissue, and she refused because they do not sell tissue.You say that is what it is for but I don't see expenses spoken about in the video. What I see is a negotiation over price.The producers of the video, like you, are lying pieces of shit. It is not illegal to use fetal tissue in medical research. Since the video was taken a year ago and no one has been arrested to charged, pretty clear who is the dumbass here, Lassie.The video says otherwise, dumb ass.
It is not illegal to donate tissue or body parts, including aborted fetus, for medical research. The cost to remove, preserve, or transport can be chaged in the arrangment.
the $100 is not for the sale but the costs for the expenses of the tissue.
The transaction being discussed is not illegal, it is not an actual "sale" but the costs for the expenses
Once the fetal tissue is removed it is not longer up to the mother what happens to the tissue. It up to the clinc/hospital to dispose or donate for research.
Tell me, how does costs for expenses change in a negotiation? Costs are static - there would be no negotiation.
Also, the last part of your statement is blatantly false. It is NOT up to the clinic what happens to the tissue.
What you never eat stir fry and rice?Your argument is screwed this week. Lots of buy one get one deals and 2/1.00 deals on proteins.
....
Shrimp (5.99 lb)
)
Shrimp? Are you fucking kidding me?
Tell you what... I will start a thread for you and show you how to plan a menu for $ 99.91 this week with 19.09 left over to stock up on a few items.
It's all in the videos, which I watched. Thank you, I will believe what drs. "Crush Above and Below The Thorax/Law is Open to Interpretation" Nocatola and "I Wanna Lambourghini I Don't Wanna Lowball the Price" said, and not an anonymous internet troll, thanks.Ten days later, 115 pages of posts, and you still lie. What a disgusting piece of shitbyou are..30-100 dollars, according to Nocatola. Lowball $100, according to "I Wanna Lambourghini". Enough to do a little better than breaking even, smile wink, Nocatola said.There was no negotiation. There was a discussion where the lying pieces of shit tried to get the doctor to discuss money for the tissue, and she refused because they do not sell tissue.You say that is what it is for but I don't see expenses spoken about in the video. What I see is a negotiation over price.The producers of the video, like you, are lying pieces of shit. It is not illegal to use fetal tissue in medical research. Since the video was taken a year ago and no one has been arrested to charged, pretty clear who is the dumbass here, Lassie.
It is not illegal to donate tissue or body parts, including aborted fetus, for medical research. The cost to remove, preserve, or transport can be chaged in the arrangment.
the $100 is not for the sale but the costs for the expenses of the tissue.
The transaction being discussed is not illegal, it is not an actual "sale" but the costs for the expenses
Once the fetal tissue is removed it is not longer up to the mother what happens to the tissue. It up to the clinc/hospital to dispose or donate for research.
Tell me, how does costs for expenses change in a negotiation? Costs are static - there would be no negotiation.
Also, the last part of your statement is blatantly false. It is NOT up to the clinic what happens to the tissue.
What you never eat stir fry and rice?Your argument is screwed this week. Lots of buy one get one deals and 2/1.00 deals on proteins.
....
Shrimp (5.99 lb)
)
Shrimp? Are you fucking kidding me?
Tell you what... I will start a thread for you and show you how to plan a menu for $ 99.91 this week with 19.09 left over to stock up on a few items.
Over priced.
If I'm not mistake, that is what many get for a whole month with food stamps/EBT. Then again there are places where that is dinner for one at a restaurant, or more without drinks
americans waste so much food every day and most don't even compost
Generators now can run on plant waste for electricity.
Joe doesn't know AT LEAST 2 things:
Government CAN'T Create Jobs.
Greece is part of the European Union.
Also Joe, the US CAN'T be failing because Obama is President and signing Executive Orders all by himself.
I usually spend about 40.00/50.00 a week for a family of 4. But we were out of a lot... and since JoeB said it couldn't be done... I took up the challenge.
I guess Joe assumes people use up 100% of their food stuffs every week and don't stock up. Which isn't true.
I usually spend about 40.00/50.00 a week for a family of 4. But we were out of a lot... and since JoeB said it couldn't be done... I took up the challenge.
I guess Joe assumes people use up 100% of their food stuffs every week and don't stock up. Which isn't true.
Horseshit. Nobody can feed a family of four on $50.00 a week.
Just doesn't happen.
Sure it does.
Watch your ads. Buy things when they go on sale and know what days your supermarket marks down their meat.
Sure it does.
Watch your ads. Buy things when they go on sale and know what days your supermarket marks down their meat.
So they should spend money to buy newspapers to find out where they can save 10 cents on a package of bacon... um, yeah. Right.
Because clearly, making big corporations rich is important.
Right.
and don't you go thinking about having no abortion! You go ahead and have kid #4 so we can look down on you when you whip out that EBT Card!
You can print out coupons online........My wife does so all the time..................I spend a lot more than the 50 or so a week though.Sure it does.
Watch your ads. Buy things when they go on sale and know what days your supermarket marks down their meat.
So they should spend money to buy newspapers to find out where they can save 10 cents on a package of bacon... um, yeah. Right.
Because clearly, making big corporations rich is important.
Right.
and don't you go thinking about having no abortion! You go ahead and have kid #4 so we can look down on you when you whip out that EBT Card!
