Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts

[koshergrl]

Organs are not viable for transplant. It is tissue viable for research and even to develop vaccines that save lives.

Something good out of something unfortunate.

Unless you happen to be the unfortunate woman who is put at risk for the more painful, stressful, dangerous and illegal procedure that they use in order to obtain those items for sale.

It's not higher risk.
It's not dangerous.
The procedure itself is not illegal.
What's illegal is changing the procedure you would routinely use.

It is higher risk.
It is painful.
The procedure is illegal.
They are changing the procedure to accommodate baby selling.

And I have repeatedly confirmed that with various independent and qualified sources.

You should stop lying. You make usmb look bad.

This was the conversation:

“If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient, ‘We’re not doing anything different in our care of you,'” she says.

Gatter: So that’s an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem, which may not be a big problem, if our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient, “We’re not doing anything different in our care of you.” Now to me, that’s kind of a specious little argument and I wouldn’t object to asking Ian, who’s our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he’s going to get an intact specimen, but I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing something and we’re signing something saying that we’re not changing anything with the way we’re managing you, just because we agree to give tissue. You’ve heard that before.

CMP: Yes. It’s touchy. How do you feel about that?

Gatter: I think they’re both totally appropriate techniques, there’s no difference in pain involved, I don’t think the patients would care one iota. So yeah, I’m not making a fuss about that.

CMP: Mhm. IPAS is the manual suction, right?

Manual suction is described here: Abortion Procedures Surgical vs. Non surgical Find Private Abortion Services. Medical information on Early Abortion and Miscarriage with MVA and the Abortion Pill.

It is not illegal.

What they do is illegal, and what all three of the directors talked about was illegal. Altering the procedure (to partial birth abortion) in order to facilitate lucrative harvest. Lucrative for PP. Not for the woman, who has her feet up in the stirrups, doped, in pain, coerced and afraid. She gets nothing. She thinks the people slicing and dicing her are competent...instead of non-certified, disgraced, non-M.D. drug addicts that are the norm for PP abortionists.

 

[koshergrl]

It relates to this..how?

Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts

She couldn't have said it any plainer:

It is all about tissue for disposal or research. It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.

No, the thread is about Planned Parenthood selling dead babies and putting women at risk to do it.

Unless you maintain Planned Parenthood is also selling fertility clinic embryos???

You want it to be about PP selling body parts, but it about abortions and choice and tissue and research and the costs of preserving and transporting tissue.............etc.

PP is not selling tissue at a profit, not at $30 -100 for the tissue. Now if there is an ongoing auction in the tens of thousands for each tissue, but that is not the case.

You are consumed in building a case on a lie of trafficking in organs. The videos that have been released and those that have been blocked by the courts are dealing with costs associated with preserving and transporting the tissue,not an actual sale for profit.

Think of the lives being saved instead of the tissue being thrown in an incinerator as just so much trash.

Yes, they are selling for a profit, and 4 of them have now been caught dickering for higher profits. Nobody's life is being saved. Women are being abused and put at risk, and babies are being *harvested* and sold via partial birth abortion....and sometimes, they aren't even dead when they do the harvesting. It's all about the profit margin.

And nobody has been *saved* by a partial birth abortion. Never, in the history of man, has a person been *saved* by torturing and killing women and children.

Intentionally set up situations to film a half dozen videos with actor and a couple of workers out of some 700 PP clinics discussing expenses in a legal transaction of donating tissue for research.

Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video

There is a high demand of the tissue and only a limited supply. The research and vaccines save lives, tissue used would otherwise be burned as waste.

PP does a lot more than abortions to help women. Congress failed to defund PP. PP are involved in prenatal care and screening for woman's health issues. They provide education on options for the woman to make an informed decision that is right for her.

It's called investigative journalism. It's how we catch monsters. It's pretty much the opposite of propaganda, which is what baby killers rely on to hide what they're doing.

 

[Stephanie]

She couldn't have said it any plainer:

No, the thread is about Planned Parenthood selling dead babies and putting women at risk to do it.

Unless you maintain Planned Parenthood is also selling fertility clinic embryos???

You want it to be about PP selling body parts, but it about abortions and choice and tissue and research and the costs of preserving and transporting tissue.............etc.

PP is not selling tissue at a profit, not at $30 -100 for the tissue. Now if there is an ongoing auction in the tens of thousands for each tissue, but that is not the case.

You are consumed in building a case on a lie of trafficking in organs. The videos that have been released and those that have been blocked by the courts are dealing with costs associated with preserving and transporting the tissue,not an actual sale for profit.

Think of the lives being saved instead of the tissue being thrown in an incinerator as just so much trash.

Yes, they are selling for a profit, and 4 of them have now been caught dickering for higher profits. Nobody's life is being saved. Women are being abused and put at risk, and babies are being *harvested* and sold via partial birth abortion....and sometimes, they aren't even dead when they do the harvesting. It's all about the profit margin.

And nobody has been *saved* by a partial birth abortion. Never, in the history of man, has a person been *saved* by torturing and killing women and children.

Intentionally set up situations to film a half dozen videos with actor and a couple of workers out of some 700 PP clinics discussing expenses in a legal transaction of donating tissue for research.

Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video

There is a high demand of the tissue and only a limited supply. The research and vaccines save lives, tissue used would otherwise be burned as waste.

PP does a lot more than abortions to help women. Congress failed to defund PP. PP are involved in prenatal care and screening for woman's health issues. They provide education on options for the woman to make an informed decision that is right for her.

It's called investigative journalism. It's how we catch monsters. It's pretty much the opposite of propaganda, which is what baby killers rely on to hide what they're doing.

that's what has people that is PRO abortion all upset. PP was caught. I never though so many people in this country would take the side of medical butchers over the unborn baby/child/human being

 

[koshergrl]

It relates to this..how?

Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts

She couldn't have said it any plainer:

It is all about tissue for disposal or research. It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.

No, the thread is about Planned Parenthood selling dead babies and putting women at risk to do it.

Unless you maintain Planned Parenthood is also selling fertility clinic embryos???

You want it to be about PP selling body parts, but it about abortions and choice and tissue and research and the costs of preserving and transporting tissue.............etc.

PP is not selling tissue at a profit, not at $30 -100 for the tissue. Now if there is an ongoing auction in the tens of thousands for each tissue, but that is not the case.

You are consumed in building a case on a lie of trafficking in organs. The videos that have been released and those that have been blocked by the courts are dealing with costs associated with preserving and transporting the tissue,not an actual sale for profit.

Think of the lives being saved instead of the tissue being thrown in an incinerator as just so much trash.

Yes, they are selling for a profit, and 4 of them have now been caught dickering for higher profits. Nobody's life is being saved. Women are being abused and put at risk, and babies are being *harvested* and sold via partial birth abortion....and sometimes, they aren't even dead when they do the harvesting. It's all about the profit margin.

And nobody has been *saved* by a partial birth abortion. Never, in the history of man, has a person been *saved* by torturing and killing women and children.

If it's "all about" the "profit margin" - show us the profits. I looked at the transcript and saw the "buyer" trying to make a case for "higher profits" but nothing where PP was making a case or agreeing.

You'd rather abuse women by forcing them to have an unwanted pregnancy then dumping them once the product is produced.

How many abused girls have you held down on the table for the PP butchers, coyote? Do you get a commission? Or do you get a per head cut?

 

[Coyote]

Organs are not viable for transplant. It is tissue viable for research and even to develop vaccines that save lives.

Something good out of something unfortunate.

Unless you happen to be the unfortunate woman who is put at risk for the more painful, stressful, dangerous and illegal procedure that they use in order to obtain those items for sale.

It's not higher risk.
It's not dangerous.
The procedure itself is not illegal.
What's illegal is changing the procedure you would routinely use.

It is higher risk.
It is painful.
The procedure is illegal.
They are changing the procedure to accommodate baby selling.

And I have repeatedly confirmed that with various independent and qualified sources.

You should stop lying. You make usmb look bad.

This was the conversation:

“If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient, ‘We’re not doing anything different in our care of you,'” she says.

Gatter: So that’s an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem, which may not be a big problem, if our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient, “We’re not doing anything different in our care of you.” Now to me, that’s kind of a specious little argument and I wouldn’t object to asking Ian, who’s our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he’s going to get an intact specimen, but I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing something and we’re signing something saying that we’re not changing anything with the way we’re managing you, just because we agree to give tissue. You’ve heard that before.

CMP: Yes. It’s touchy. How do you feel about that?

Gatter: I think they’re both totally appropriate techniques, there’s no difference in pain involved, I don’t think the patients would care one iota. So yeah, I’m not making a fuss about that.

CMP: Mhm. IPAS is the manual suction, right?

Manual suction is described here: Abortion Procedures Surgical vs. Non surgical Find Private Abortion Services. Medical information on Early Abortion and Miscarriage with MVA and the Abortion Pill.

It is not illegal.

What they do is illegal, and what all three of the directors talked about was illegal. Altering the procedure (to partial birth abortion) in order to facilitate lucrative harvest. Lucrative for PP. Not for the woman, who has her feet up in the stirrups, doped, in pain, coerced and afraid. She gets nothing. She thinks the people slicing and dicing her are competent...instead of non-certified, disgraced, non-M.D. drug addicts that are the norm for PP abortionists.

That is not what you said. Read your own words.

Also, try to stay on track.

With this procedure there is no slicing/dicing. Unless she was coerced by someone outside of PP, she is not coerced and afraid and not under anesthesia.

Perhaps you have some meaningful statistics that indicate that "non-certified, disgraced, non-M.D. drug addicts that are the norm for PP abortionists" are the norm?

I won't hold my breath.

 

[Coyote]

She couldn't have said it any plainer:

No, the thread is about Planned Parenthood selling dead babies and putting women at risk to do it.

Unless you maintain Planned Parenthood is also selling fertility clinic embryos???

You want it to be about PP selling body parts, but it about abortions and choice and tissue and research and the costs of preserving and transporting tissue.............etc.

PP is not selling tissue at a profit, not at $30 -100 for the tissue. Now if there is an ongoing auction in the tens of thousands for each tissue, but that is not the case.

You are consumed in building a case on a lie of trafficking in organs. The videos that have been released and those that have been blocked by the courts are dealing with costs associated with preserving and transporting the tissue,not an actual sale for profit.

Think of the lives being saved instead of the tissue being thrown in an incinerator as just so much trash.

Yes, they are selling for a profit, and 4 of them have now been caught dickering for higher profits. Nobody's life is being saved. Women are being abused and put at risk, and babies are being *harvested* and sold via partial birth abortion....and sometimes, they aren't even dead when they do the harvesting. It's all about the profit margin.

And nobody has been *saved* by a partial birth abortion. Never, in the history of man, has a person been *saved* by torturing and killing women and children.

If it's "all about" the "profit margin" - show us the profits. I looked at the transcript and saw the "buyer" trying to make a case for "higher profits" but nothing where PP was making a case or agreeing.

You'd rather abuse women by forcing them to have an unwanted pregnancy then dumping them once the product is produced.

How many abused girls have you held down on the table for the PP butchers, coyote? Do you get a commission? Or do you get a per head cut?

Hyperbole much?

 

[JFish123]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stephanie]

View attachment 46532
View attachment 46533
View attachment 46534

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EXCELLENT Post. and there it is. they LIE to these women while sucking their children from their bodies

 

[koshergrl]

Unless you happen to be the unfortunate woman who is put at risk for the more painful, stressful, dangerous and illegal procedure that they use in order to obtain those items for sale.

It's not higher risk.
It's not dangerous.
The procedure itself is not illegal.
What's illegal is changing the procedure you would routinely use.

It is higher risk.
It is painful.
The procedure is illegal.
They are changing the procedure to accommodate baby selling.

And I have repeatedly confirmed that with various independent and qualified sources.

You should stop lying. You make usmb look bad.

This was the conversation:

“If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient, ‘We’re not doing anything different in our care of you,'” she says.

Gatter: So that’s an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem, which may not be a big problem, if our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient, “We’re not doing anything different in our care of you.” Now to me, that’s kind of a specious little argument and I wouldn’t object to asking Ian, who’s our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he’s going to get an intact specimen, but I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing something and we’re signing something saying that we’re not changing anything with the way we’re managing you, just because we agree to give tissue. You’ve heard that before.

CMP: Yes. It’s touchy. How do you feel about that?

Gatter: I think they’re both totally appropriate techniques, there’s no difference in pain involved, I don’t think the patients would care one iota. So yeah, I’m not making a fuss about that.

CMP: Mhm. IPAS is the manual suction, right?

Manual suction is described here: Abortion Procedures Surgical vs. Non surgical Find Private Abortion Services. Medical information on Early Abortion and Miscarriage with MVA and the Abortion Pill.

It is not illegal.

What they do is illegal, and what all three of the directors talked about was illegal. Altering the procedure (to partial birth abortion) in order to facilitate lucrative harvest. Lucrative for PP. Not for the woman, who has her feet up in the stirrups, doped, in pain, coerced and afraid. She gets nothing. She thinks the people slicing and dicing her are competent...instead of non-certified, disgraced, non-M.D. drug addicts that are the norm for PP abortionists.

That is not what you said. Read your own words.

Also, try to stay on track.

With this procedure there is no slicing/dicing. Unless she was coerced by someone outside of PP, she is not coerced and afraid and not under anesthesia.

Perhaps you have some meaningful statistics that indicate that "non-certified, disgraced, non-M.D. drug addicts that are the norm for PP abortionists" are the norm?

I won't hold my breath.

Slicing, dicing, coercion:

"Itai Gravely, a 26-year-old woman, filed suit against the Women’s Health Center of West Virginia and abortionist Rodney Lee Stephens after Stephens allegedly forced Ms. Gravely to proceed with an abortion against her will and then left her dead baby’s head inside her womb.[53]

• Ms. Gravely changed her mind about the abortion after adequate anesthesia could not be administered.
  • Dr. Stephens ordered clinic workers to physically restrain Ms. Gravely as he proceeded with the abortion.
  • The next day, Ms. Gravely was rushed to the emergency room where it was discovered that dismembered body parts, including the head of her child, had been left in her womb. "

Kermit Gosnell is Not an Outlier SBA-List

 

[koshergrl]

No, the thread is about Planned Parenthood selling dead babies and putting women at risk to do it.

Unless you maintain Planned Parenthood is also selling fertility clinic embryos???

You want it to be about PP selling body parts, but it about abortions and choice and tissue and research and the costs of preserving and transporting tissue.............etc.

PP is not selling tissue at a profit, not at $30 -100 for the tissue. Now if there is an ongoing auction in the tens of thousands for each tissue, but that is not the case.

You are consumed in building a case on a lie of trafficking in organs. The videos that have been released and those that have been blocked by the courts are dealing with costs associated with preserving and transporting the tissue,not an actual sale for profit.

Think of the lives being saved instead of the tissue being thrown in an incinerator as just so much trash.

Yes, they are selling for a profit, and 4 of them have now been caught dickering for higher profits. Nobody's life is being saved. Women are being abused and put at risk, and babies are being *harvested* and sold via partial birth abortion....and sometimes, they aren't even dead when they do the harvesting. It's all about the profit margin.

And nobody has been *saved* by a partial birth abortion. Never, in the history of man, has a person been *saved* by torturing and killing women and children.

If it's "all about" the "profit margin" - show us the profits. I looked at the transcript and saw the "buyer" trying to make a case for "higher profits" but nothing where PP was making a case or agreeing.

You'd rather abuse women by forcing them to have an unwanted pregnancy then dumping them once the product is produced.

How many abused girls have you held down on the table for the PP butchers, coyote? Do you get a commission? Or do you get a per head cut?

Hyperbole much?

No, it's a serious question. I believe you are a paid scout.

 

[koshergrl]

View attachment 46532
View attachment 46533
View attachment 46534

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect this will be deleted. It's okay to jokingly post images of dead fetal pigs in abortion threads...but the baby killers find the images of aborted babies too graphic. Presumably because they know they're babies. I mean, everybody knows they're babies....they just don't like to be faced with it.

 

[sakinago]

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.

So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?

She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing. She had irreversible brain damage. Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions? That is not living. Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells. She should not have been kept so long like that. She should have been freed long before.

No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it

Tube is artificial feed. Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath. Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days. This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells. She really was not alive.

Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support. And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time, I was unfortunate enough to experience it myself as a student. Guy was considered brain dead for 2 years, had every tube possible tube connected to him, much more than chaivo. I went to roll him and do a skin assessment early in my shift, under his back was an O2 nozzle imbedded into his skin from him laying on it all night. Pulled it out, lotioned up the spot. Set him on his side, and said I bet that feels much better. To my Suprise he looked me in the eye, nodded with his eyes, then he went back to staring at the ceiling. I reported it, a neurologist came by later, in 2 mins came out and said no way he is brain dead. Long story short this guys mother got a nice big settlement from the hospital.

So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?

She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing. She had irreversible brain damage. Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions? That is not living. Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells. She should not have been kept so long like that. She should have been freed long before.

No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it

Tube is artificial feed. Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath. Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days. This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells. She really was not alive.

Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support. And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time, I was unfortunate enough to experience it myself as a student. Guy was considered brain dead for 2 years, had every tube possible tube connected to him, much more than chaivo. I went to roll him and do a skin assessment early in my shift, under his back was an O2 nozzle imbedded into his skin from him laying on it all night. Pulled it out, lotioned up the spot. Set him on his side, and said I bet that feels much better. To my Suprise he looked me in the eye, nodded with his eyes, then he went back to staring at the ceiling. I reported it, a neurologist came by later, in 2 mins came out and said no way he is brain dead. Long story short this guys mother got a nice big settlement from the hospital.

So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?

Give them time! And non-consensual euthanasia is a big "YES!" in Denmark.

 

[Faun]

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.

So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?

She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing. She had irreversible brain damage. Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions? That is not living. Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells. She should not have been kept so long like that. She should have been freed long before.

No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it

Tube is artificial feed. Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath. Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days. This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells. She really was not alive.

Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support.

[Emphasis add] You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....

765.101 Definitions

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​

And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time...

[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated] Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?

So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?

Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?

 

[aris2chat]

Organs are not viable for transplant. It is tissue viable for research and even to develop vaccines that save lives.

Something good out of something unfortunate.

Unless you happen to be the unfortunate woman who is put at risk for the more painful, stressful, dangerous and illegal procedure that they use in order to obtain those items for sale.

Most women that opt for surgical abortion are given a general anesthesia and feel nothing. Less than half an hour after waking they are dressed and walking out on their own. Chemicals can be more difficult and painful with side effects, a bit like chemo.

It is only in late term that a fetus is cut and removed in pieces to facilitate the passing through the canal. Late term is a medical decision to save the woman's life or to prevent the suffering of the fetus and imminent death because the fetus has a severe birth defect.

you sound like an expert. how many abortions have you performed? Just a little half hour walk in the park. Hell you won't even remember they SUCKED your baby from your body. You must work in the baby killing Industry you know so much about it

I help our neighbor, a nurse, treat people of all ages and conditions who could not get to a hospital or doctor. I also help out at refugee camps. A lot of it was field medicine, and no always of just people. I also was involved in researching of long term pain for both doctors and patients. I was asked to be hospice/geriatric in home caretaker. I've help with women who both lost and gave birth. Back then everyone had to dig in and help in any way possible to survive. We all had to wear many hats.

I can fix a sink but that does not make me a plumber. I don't need to have performed any abortions to have educated myself, or to care about women and children, and animals. I don't work in a killing industry, but I have witnessed too much wasted killing and mutilation.

......and I don't have to be an expert to know you are being a crass moron to try and insult me, but not a very good one.

Why is it necessary for people to be so stupid to not want to inform themselves on a topic, both sides? Why should only experts be able to read technical or medical journals? Why don't more people read the news instead of propaganda? Why do so many care more about a life not yet developed but not about the woman and what she might be going through?

 

[koshergrl]

Organs are not viable for transplant. It is tissue viable for research and even to develop vaccines that save lives.

Something good out of something unfortunate.

Unless you happen to be the unfortunate woman who is put at risk for the more painful, stressful, dangerous and illegal procedure that they use in order to obtain those items for sale.

Most women that opt for surgical abortion are given a general anesthesia and feel nothing. Less than half an hour after waking they are dressed and walking out on their own. Chemicals can be more difficult and painful with side effects, a bit like chemo.

It is only in late term that a fetus is cut and removed in pieces to facilitate the passing through the canal. Late term is a medical decision to save the woman's life or to prevent the suffering of the fetus and imminent death because the fetus has a severe birth defect.

you sound like an expert. how many abortions have you performed? Just a little half hour walk in the park. Hell you won't even remember they SUCKED your baby from your body. You must work in the baby killing Industry you know so much about it

I help our neighbor, a nurse, treat people of all ages and conditions who could not get to a hospital or doctor. I also help out at refugee camps. A lot of it was field medicine, and no always of just people. I also was involved in researching of long term pain for both doctors and patients. I was asked to be hospice/geriatric in home caretaker. I've help with women who both lost and gave birth. Back then everyone had to dig in and help in any way possible to survive. We all had to wear many hats.

I can fix a sink but that does not make me a plumber. I don't need to have performed any abortions to have educated myself, or to care about women and children, and animals. I don't work in a killing industry, but I have witnessed too much wasted killing and mutilation.

......and I don't have to be an expert to know you are being a crass moron to try and insult me, but not a very good one.

Why is it necessary for people to be so stupid to not want to inform themselves on a topic, both sides? Why should only experts be able to read technical or medical journals? Why don't more people read the news instead of propaganda? Why do so many care more about a life not yet developed but not about the woman and what she might be going through?

You and the *nurse* practice unauthorized medicine?

You are an abortionist, aren't you? Can you say "back alley abortions = good medicine!" Wait, you already said that.

 

[aris2chat]

So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?

She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing. She had irreversible brain damage. Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions? That is not living. Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells. She should not have been kept so long like that. She should have been freed long before.

No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it

Tube is artificial feed. Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath. Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days. This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells. She really was not alive.

Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support. And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time, I was unfortunate enough to experience it myself as a student. Guy was considered brain dead for 2 years, had every tube possible tube connected to him, much more than chaivo. I went to roll him and do a skin assessment early in my shift, under his back was an O2 nozzle imbedded into his skin from him laying on it all night. Pulled it out, lotioned up the spot. Set him on his side, and said I bet that feels much better. To my Suprise he looked me in the eye, nodded with his eyes, then he went back to staring at the ceiling. I reported it, a neurologist came by later, in 2 mins came out and said no way he is brain dead. Long story short this guys mother got a nice big settlement from the hospital.

So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?

Give them time! And non-consensual euthanasia is a big "YES!" in Denmark.

.............Oregon, Washington, Montana and Vermont

 

[sakinago]

So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?

She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing. She had irreversible brain damage. Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions? That is not living. Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells. She should not have been kept so long like that. She should have been freed long before.

Yes, she was alive. That's why they had to withhold food and water to kill her. Like I said...weak helpless people have shortened lifespans when a progressive notices them.

A brain dead cadaver can be kept alive artificially. If we "play God" by ending life, then we are surely "playing God" by prolonging it in this manner. It's isn't "life" as many of us would want it.

Brain dead doesn't move or react, by your definition severely autistic is nothing but a cadaver.

That is *your* definition, not mine. What constitutes brain dead is not simply a lack of movement or reaction.

Not my definition

 

[Coyote]

She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing. She had irreversible brain damage. Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions? That is not living. Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells. She should not have been kept so long like that. She should have been freed long before.

Yes, she was alive. That's why they had to withhold food and water to kill her. Like I said...weak helpless people have shortened lifespans when a progressive notices them.

A brain dead cadaver can be kept alive artificially. If we "play God" by ending life, then we are surely "playing God" by prolonging it in this manner. It's isn't "life" as many of us would want it.

Brain dead doesn't move or react, by your definition severely autistic is nothing but a cadaver.

That is *your* definition, not mine. What constitutes brain dead is not simply a lack of movement or reaction.

Not my definition

Then I don't know where the hell you pulled it out from.

 

[sakinago]

So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?

She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing. She had irreversible brain damage. Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions? That is not living. Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells. She should not have been kept so long like that. She should have been freed long before.

No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it

Tube is artificial feed. Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath. Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days. This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells. She really was not alive.

Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support.

[Emphasis add] You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....

765.101 Definitions

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​

And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time...

[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated] Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?

So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?

Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?

Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you. And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question