Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts

[TheProgressivePatriot]

America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos: Poll
More than half of respondents said they are inclined to believe Planned Parenthood’s side of the story.

The family planning provider says the videos actually show doctors discussing reimbursement for the costs of donating fetal tissue for medical research, which is legal because it is not for profit.

Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million a year in federal funds, which it uses for contraception services, sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment, and other non-abortion services. Nearly a quarter of women polled said they had personally visited a Planned Parenthood clinic for health care, and 61 percent of independent women voters said they would favor a candidate who wants to continue funding the provider. Of people inclined to vote Republican, a quarter said they preferred a candidate who wanted to continue funding Planned Parenthood, said Geoff Garin, president of Hart Research.

Read More: America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos Poll

 

[Stephanie]

Meet the Extremist from Rightwing watch. You can't get anymore of some LYING extremist than that site. wake up folks. they are CALLING all of you people who are calling to defund PP every vile NAME they could come up with. THIS is what they do.....

vote this party and crap out of lives.


oh and here take a looksee
SNIP:
Fifth undercover video on Planned Parenthood: Diversification of the revenue Stream

 

[Stephanie]

America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos: Poll
More than half of respondents said they are inclined to believe Planned Parenthood’s side of the story.

The family planning provider says the videos actually show doctors discussing reimbursement for the costs of donating fetal tissue for medical research, which is legal because it is not for profit.

Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million a year in federal funds, which it uses for contraception services, sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment, and other non-abortion services. Nearly a quarter of women polled said they had personally visited a Planned Parenthood clinic for health care, and 61 percent of independent women voters said they would favor a candidate who wants to continue funding the provider. Of people inclined to vote Republican, a quarter said they preferred a candidate who wanted to continue funding Planned Parenthood, said Geoff Garin, president of Hart Research.

Read More: America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos Poll

man you have all the unworthy leftwing site going on. Not one of them is Reputable . and you're becoming Hysterical..... you on the left might want to go save up for abortion. because this isn't going to end. THE NEXT video is out

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos: Poll
More than half of respondents said they are inclined to believe Planned Parenthood’s side of the story.

The family planning provider says the videos actually show doctors discussing reimbursement for the costs of donating fetal tissue for medical research, which is legal because it is not for profit.

Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million a year in federal funds, which it uses for contraception services, sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment, and other non-abortion services. Nearly a quarter of women polled said they had personally visited a Planned Parenthood clinic for health care, and 61 percent of independent women voters said they would favor a candidate who wants to continue funding the provider. Of people inclined to vote Republican, a quarter said they preferred a candidate who wanted to continue funding Planned Parenthood, said Geoff Garin, president of Hart Research.

Read More: America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos Poll

man you have all the unworthy leftwing site going on. Not one of them is Reputable . and you're becoming Hysterical..... you on the left might want to go save up for abortion. because this isn't going to end. THE NEXT video is out

Refute the poll then. Refute the information about all of the vital services that PP provides, and refute this:

DEBUNKED: Planned Parenthood Undercover Videos Are Bogus

Why do you hate women, Stephanie ?

 

[Stephanie]

America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos: Poll
More than half of respondents said they are inclined to believe Planned Parenthood’s side of the story.

The family planning provider says the videos actually show doctors discussing reimbursement for the costs of donating fetal tissue for medical research, which is legal because it is not for profit.

Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million a year in federal funds, which it uses for contraception services, sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment, and other non-abortion services. Nearly a quarter of women polled said they had personally visited a Planned Parenthood clinic for health care, and 61 percent of independent women voters said they would favor a candidate who wants to continue funding the provider. Of people inclined to vote Republican, a quarter said they preferred a candidate who wanted to continue funding Planned Parenthood, said Geoff Garin, president of Hart Research.

Read More: America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos Poll

man you have all the unworthy leftwing site going on. Not one of them is Reputable . and you're becoming Hysterical..... you on the left might want to go save up for abortion. because this isn't going to end. THE NEXT video is out

Refute the poll then. Refute the information about all of the vital services that PP provides, and refute this:

DEBUNKED: Planned Parenthood Undercover Videos Are Bogus

Why do you hate women, Stephanie ?

you know what. you need go take a break. I'm afraid you are going to hurt yourself or something.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos: Poll
More than half of respondents said they are inclined to believe Planned Parenthood’s side of the story.

The family planning provider says the videos actually show doctors discussing reimbursement for the costs of donating fetal tissue for medical research, which is legal because it is not for profit.

Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million a year in federal funds, which it uses for contraception services, sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment, and other non-abortion services. Nearly a quarter of women polled said they had personally visited a Planned Parenthood clinic for health care, and 61 percent of independent women voters said they would favor a candidate who wants to continue funding the provider. Of people inclined to vote Republican, a quarter said they preferred a candidate who wanted to continue funding Planned Parenthood, said Geoff Garin, president of Hart Research.

Read More: America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos Poll

man you have all the unworthy leftwing site going on. Not one of them is Reputable . and you're becoming Hysterical..... you on the left might want to go save up for abortion. because this isn't going to end. THE NEXT video is out

Refute the poll then. Refute the information about all of the vital services that PP provides, and refute this:

DEBUNKED: Planned Parenthood Undercover Videos Are Bogus

Why do you hate women, Stephanie ?

you know what. you need go take a break. I'm afraid you are going to hurt yourself or something.

As much as you might wish-not a chance. Thank you for admitting that you do not have a rebuttal. All you have are wise cracks.

 

[Stephanie]

THIS is what every state needs to do folks. Contact your STATE Representatives. THIS lowlife CONGRESS isn't going to do as you want. or start blowing the phones up for these baby killing supporters in Congress

SNIP:

Jindal: We've Canceled Medicaid Contract with Planned Parenthood
"It has become clear that this is not an organization that is worthy of receiving public assistance from the state."
8.4.2015
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal issuedpress release Monday announcing that the state is terminating its Medicaid contract with the nation's leading abortion provider Planned Parenthood.

The announcement follows the release of four undercover expose videos (several more will likely be posted in the coming weeks) showing Planned Parenthood's high-level medical personnel negotiating prices for the sale of fetal body parts and explaining how their doctors alter the abortion procedure to better procure the "tissue," both potentially illegal activities.

After Jindal ordered the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals to investigate the embattled abortion provider's practices, DHH has now informed Planned Parenthood that it would know longer contract with them for Medicaid services.

A statement from Gov. Jindal's office Monday explained the state's decision to cancel its partnership with the organization, citing its legal right to "cancel the contract at will after providing written notice" and underscoring that cancellation of the contract "does not jeopardize" providing services to women across the state as Louisiana has contracts with several women's health providers.

Here's the complete press release:

all of it here:
Jindal We ve Canceled Medicaid Contract with Planned Parenthood Truth Revolt

 

[Vigilante]

Oh, and for you UNCIVILIZES, IMMORAL, UNETHICAL scumbags of the left HERE is the full almost 3 hours video, so you lying pieces of shit can now suck my cock! Oh, and BTW ALL the unedited full length video's are at The Center for Medical Progress website, If you care to spend a leisurely day watching them.... I understand there are STILL 7 more coming out, and you know they've saved the most vicious for last!

FULL, UNEDITED FOOTAGE: Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts

 

[aris2chat]

Are you trying to be an @ss?

Women can't read medical or issue sites that deal with male topics? Why shouldn't a man read about female issues? If nothing else it is educational and helps to understand? A simple search brings all types of sites so why should one be verboten for men to reference?

Chiffon???? you should change you screen name to silly after that comment. Go take a walk around the block and get some oxygen. You have a brain, use it to think before posting.

People need to stop thinking if abortion or termination as a substitute for birth control. I doubt any women makes a decision lightly, but they do what is best option for them. As for later term termination it is not because they don't want a child but because it is life safety issue or to prevent the child suffering and only surviving a short time.

The reason the fetus is take out in pieces during later term is because it is too large to be removed whole. Any reflex of the fetus is from the brain stem and not because it is alive or feels anything from the procedure. It is like frog legs twitching while sitting on a plate after being removed from the rest of the body. It is a residual electrical response. Our bodies react after we are dead, even after brain death family can't accept because the body muscles twitch and they misinterpret that with willing response to the sound of their voice or a touch of their hand.

The release of electrical energy stored up in the muscles and brain is not living and trying to keep someone artificially alive in that that state is any but quality of live and only prolongs the pain for the loved one rather than allow them to mourn.

No women would opt to not prevent a pregnancy in favor or abortion. When a woman has to make that choice it is because it is what is best after weighing the options for her.

You want to save unwanted children? Go adopt a few and care for them. No women should unwillingly be made to carry and give birth. Adoption is not an easy choice either.

Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also. It's her choice and no one elses. I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.

Really? It is her choice and no one else? Are you POSITIVE about that?

Yes.

Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.

I have addressed it already.

I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already. Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.

I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers? The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.

Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.

Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.

THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act. Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement. IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered. CLEARLY this is not the case. Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?

That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions. I have not seen you actually address that.

Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier. I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied. I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.

Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body. If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice. If not, that too is her choice. Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make. Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world. Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be. We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines. We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?

 

[aris2chat]

Love the little LION comparisons.....

Women found ways throughout history to end unwanted pregnancy, many with deadly consequences for her. Why are you bothered that tissue that otherwise would be disposed of might actually be of benefit to the living?
It is wonderful that there are happy children in the world but shy should a woman and a fetus both be unhappy because it was a life that should not have been forced to be carried and born and then lost in a broken system filled with far too many children already?

Deal with the lives in the system already before you make demands on women over their own bodies.

 

[sakinago]

Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also. It's her choice and no one elses. I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.

Really? It is her choice and no one else? Are you POSITIVE about that?

Yes.

Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.

I have addressed it already.

I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already. Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.

I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers? The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.

Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.

Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.

THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act. Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement. IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered. CLEARLY this is not the case. Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?

That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions. I have not seen you actually address that.

Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier. I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied. I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.

Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body. If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice. If not, that too is her choice. Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make. Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world. Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be. We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines. We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?

So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?

 

[aris2chat]

It is not a partial birth in the first three months. Fetus is too underdeveloped.
PBA are medical choices to save the woman's life or undue suffering of the fetus, if it lives.
If women can choose to terminate to under go medical treatment for themselves, why should they not have that right over their body if they are not ready to take that risk for a fetus they are not ready to care for? Would you deny a woman cancer treatment because she is pregnant? Would you force her to give up her life for that of a fetus? What is a woman had some other illness or addiction that might threaten her life or that of the fetus? Under what circumstances does a woman ever have a choice or control over her body?

Why do you care if the tissue is incinerated or can be used for research? You don't care about the lives that could be saved by that research?
What if those threatened by ebola? Do you think there would be a vaccine for any strain without it? How many more years or decades would it have taken? What of other potential pandemics?

 

[EverCurious]

There are mountains of evidence supporting the bible.

Talking Snakes
Talking Donkeys
Giants
satyrs
Unicorns

all appear in the bible. Where's the evidence?

No unicorns in bible. And if God exists would anything be impossible for Him? It takes far more faith to be an atheist than not one I'm afraid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He's got a point on the Unicorn anyway:

In 1611, when the KJV was produced, the translators used the word "unicorn" to translate a single Hebrew word, רְאֵם reym, because they didn't know what the original Hebrew word meant. It is the English that critics complain about, not the original Hebrew text. Let's take a look at a few of the verses in the KJV that use the word "unicorn."

• Job. 39:9-10 KJV, "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? 10Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?"
• Psalm 22:21 KJV, "Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns."
• Isaiah 34:7 KJV, "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."
• See also KJV in Num. 23:22; Nu. 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Psalm 29:6; 92:10.

In every occurrence of the English word "unicorn," it is the same Hebrew word ראם reym.

• רְאֵם [râʾem, râʾeym, reym, rem /reh·ame/] n m. From 7213; TWOT 2096a; GK 8028; Nine occurrences; AV translates as “unicorn” nine times. 1 probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known. 1
• reem or רְאֵים reem or רֵים rem or רֵם rem (910b); from 7213; a wild ox:—wild ox(7), wild oxen(2).2
• 8028 רְאֵם (reʾēm): n.masc.; ≡ Str 7214; TWOT 2096a—1. LN 4.1–4.37 (most versions) wild ox, aurochs, i.e., an extinct, long-horned, ancestor of the domestic cattle, Bos primigenius bojanus (Nu 23:22; 24:8; Dt 33:17; Job 39:9, 10; Ps 22:21[EB 21]; 92:11[EB 10]; Isa 34:7+), note: kjv, lxx, VULG. translate as a single-horned animal, such as rhinoceros or mysterious unicorn; 2. LN 4.1–4.37 unit: בֵּן רְאֵם (bēn reʾēm) adolescent wild ox, i.e., a non-domestic ox likely under two years old (Ps 29:6+) 3

Critics
Of course critics will just say that the Bible translators altered the English to escape the inclusion of mythical creatures. But again, they must realize that the KJV is in English, and it is the English they are complaining about, not the original Hebrew word.

• UNICORN kjv rendering for an animal called a “wild ox” in the nlt and most modern translations (Nm 24:8; Dt 33:17). Unicorn is an unfortunate translation (following the Septuagint) because the animal had two horns, not one. See Animals (Wild Ox). 4
• Unicorn--described as an animal of great ferocity and strength (Num. 23:22), R.V., “wild ox,” marg., “ox-antelope;” 24:8; Isa. 34:7, R.V., “wild oxen”), and untamable (Job 39:9). It was in reality a two-horned animal; but the exact reference of the word so rendered (reem) is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo; others, the white antelope, called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes the Bos primigenius (“primitive ox”), which is now extinct all over the world. This was the auerochs of the Germans, and the urus described by Caesar (Gal. Bel., vi.28) as inhabiting the Hercynian forest. The word thus rendered has been found in an Assyrian inscription written over the wild ox or bison, which some also suppose to be the animal intended (comp. Deut. 33:17; Ps. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10). 5

The LXX--Septuagint
The LXX (The Greek translation of the Old Testament done around 250 B.C.) says of Job 39:9, βουλήσεται δέ σοι μονόκερως δουλεῦσαι ἢ κοιμηθῆναι ἐπὶ φάτνης σου. The Greek word μονόκερως monokeros is what the Hebrews tranlsated the Hebrew word רְאֵם reym into. It is an unfortunate rendering. It literally means "one horn," and this is why the KJV rendered it as unicorn since it was using the LXX and not the original Hebrew here.

People like to pretend that there were no Hebrew scholars in hand to assist with the development of the kjv. History know-nothings actually believe that the best educated rulers of the past were as retarded as they are.

Well as a non-believer, it certainly isn't my field of expertise. However, I do find the subject interesting. Do you think the writers actually /meant/ Unicorn then? I guess I always wrote it off as a mis-translation of Rhino's, or maybe referring to a specific animal who just happened to have one horn, something like that. I suppose I'd been under the impression that it was believed that some story teller/writer/movie maker who in a sense brought the whole unicorn thing "to the public" so to speak; some story/book/movie in more "modern" times that had basically made up that the reason unicorns don't exist is because they were too lazy (or maybe it was vain I can't remember) to get on the ark, rather than anything actually found in the bible or believed by anyone of faith. ~shrug~

 

[EverCurious]

Jesus loves it when we bomb the Third world ....

Never said He did. Doesn't excuse abortion. You can't say since someone is sinning over there it's ok for others to sin over here. It's illogical


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except your idea of sin does not mean it is against US law. And abortion is legal.

But so was jim crow, slavery, eminent domain (still is), those were all laws and policy, does not make them right. And right to life is in the constitution, which was created from religious dogma saying that god gives us the right to choose, speak, defend ourselves, etc.

The constitution defines that life begins at viability, at minimum 21 weeks, as per Roe vs Wade and many other courts of the nation.

No it doesn't, roe v wade was about it not being fair that you could get abortions in some states but not in others, much like the gay marriage ruling. The constitution at one point also said blacks only counted as 3/5ths

I never said it couldn't be changed, however, it remains that those who define what 'life' is/when it begins according to constitutional law, say it starts at viability. If one wants to stop abortion fully, then it is going to take a constitutional amendment, or at a bare minimum, overturning Roe vs Wade's specific determination that the state has no "compelling reason" to intervene in a woman's right to privacy (which includes abortion) prior to the end of the first trimester.

 

[aris2chat]

Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.

I will ask you what I have asked others. What laws did PP break?

Perhaps this will help you...then again!

Sale of baby body parts

Lucrative?? LMAO!! At $30 to $100 each? I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs. Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.

Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?

None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions. The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.

Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:

"We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price.” She continued in an email:

Sawyer, July 20: In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.

Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit.”

Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” ‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”

from: Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video

It should not be an either or, but how much would it cost the tax payer to care for the pregnant mother through her pregnancy? who much to raise the child in the system? How many of those in the system will unfortunately commit a crime in their lifetime? How much to process them through the legal process and jail them? How many millions of children and infants in the world need homes right now? Do you expect even a tenth of them to actually find homes? And the rest?

Do you really understand the support system helping would be mothers through their pregnancy just to give up the children? And if they actually kept the child? Where is the moral and financial support for them? It is a highly insufficient, but you expect taxpayers to be more concerned with a life not yet viable over that of those struggling right now? What of the suffering of the woman that give up a child even for the best reasons? It is easier to loose a child than to know there is one out there that has to be given to someone else or that exists in a failing system.

If girls/women had better education and more access to birth control option the need for abortions might be reduced but never be eliminated. Force men to be the ones responsible for not producing pregnancies till both parents are fully ready for the commitment.

Put an end to all abuse and suffering of the living and ever other social problem. Don't interfere with a woman's right over her body.

 

[aris2chat]

Really? It is her choice and no one else? Are you POSITIVE about that?

Yes.

Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.

I have addressed it already.

I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already. Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.

I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers? The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.

Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.

Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.

THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act. Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement. IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered. CLEARLY this is not the case. Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?

That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions. I have not seen you actually address that.

Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier. I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied. I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.

Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body. If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice. If not, that too is her choice. Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make. Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world. Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be. We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines. We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?

So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?

If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet. It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up. And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?

There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not. At what age, education level does she have or loose that right? If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus? If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up? What if she is in school or beginning a new job? What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her? When is a woman's body her own? When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her? Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.

 

[koshergrl]

Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also. It's her choice and no one elses. I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.

Really? It is her choice and no one else? Are you POSITIVE about that?

Yes.

Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.

I have addressed it already.

I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already. Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.

I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers? The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.

Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.

Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.

THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act. Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement. IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered. CLEARLY this is not the case. Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?

That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions. I have not seen you actually address that.

Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier. I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied. I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.

Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body. If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice. If not, that too is her choice. Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make. Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world. Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be. We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines. We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?

What a stupid argument. Who decides a child should be killed, rather than risk the chance of potential unhappiness? And there IS a shortage of babies available for adoption. It it the obligation of a mother, no matter what development stage her child is at, to protect that child until such time as she can safely transfer the protection of the child to someone else. You have no right...in theory or as a mother, to terminate the life of any other human....even if you find that duty a nuisance.

 

[koshergrl]

I will ask you what I have asked others. What laws did PP break?

Perhaps this will help you...then again!

Sale of baby body parts

Lucrative?? LMAO!! At $30 to $100 each? I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs. Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.

Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?

None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions. The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.

Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:

"We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price.” She continued in an email:

Sawyer, July 20: In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.

Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit.”

Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” ‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”

from: Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video

It should not be an either or, but how much would it cost the tax payer to care for the pregnant mother through her pregnancy? who much to raise the child in the system? How many of those in the system will unfortunately commit a crime in their lifetime? How much to process them through the legal process and jail them? How many millions of children and infants in the world need homes right now? Do you expect even a tenth of them to actually find homes? And the rest?

Do you really understand the support system helping would be mothers through their pregnancy just to give up the children? And if they actually kept the child? Where is the moral and financial support for them? It is a highly insufficient, but you expect taxpayers to be more concerned with a life not yet viable over that of those struggling right now? What of the suffering of the woman that give up a child even for the best reasons? It is easier to loose a child than to know there is one out there that has to be given to someone else or that exists in a failing system.

If girls/women had better education and more access to birth control option the need for abortions might be reduced but never be eliminated. Force men to be the ones responsible for not producing pregnancies till both parents are fully ready for the commitment.

Put an end to all abuse and suffering of the living and ever other social problem. Don't interfere with a woman's right over her body.

Another series of lies to justify the murder of the vulnerable. Nazis also sold the murder of defenseless ppl based on their consideration as a burden. You baby killing pigs are disgusting.

 

[koshergrl]

PS...killing babies and exploiting women doesn't reduce the incidence of violence. It increases it. Neither does abortion result in fewer abortions...these are idiotic lies told by ppl to justify the slaughter of the vulnerable and defenseless.

 

[EverCurious]

It's not just about the woman's convenience, that's just bullshit you think supports your side. There is no /easy/ answer here. Being pro-life or pro-choice isn't the be all and end all.

There is an /extremely/ large connection between child abuse and unwanted pregnancy. Maybe said mother knows that she cannot properly care for a(nother) child at that point in her life, who are you to dictate that decision? And I realize ya'll want to push for adoption as the alternative, but adoption is just as fraught with child abuse as unwanted children, and again, who are you to dictate that a woman has no other choice but to keep a child she wants or put them up for adoption?

Why do you feel that /your/ opinion about the rights of the "baby" are more important than the "mothers" opinion about the rights of the "baby"? You would label her a "murderer" because it suits your cause, but the "mother" doesn't see herself as a murderer, she see's herself as making a choice that is in the best interest for not only herself, but that "baby" as well. I don't think /most/ people come into a decision like this flippantly like you want to portray, I suspect most spend a good amount of time thinking about it both before and after - no matter how much you pro-lifer's want to paint them as "selfish inhuman murderers."

I don't believe life starts at conception, I don't believe it begins until the brain is formed (which is actually /before/ the end of the first trimester) - thus it is not murder in my eyes, even if it is in yours, /your/ opinion about how /I/ feel and believe is frankly irrelevant. Welcome to America.