Planned Parenthood leaked video (2 Viewers)

[matuski]

Here's something odd I've noticed in reading these discussions. The pro abortion folks are pretty determined to make clear *they* personally do not think these fetuses are more than tissue, these are not persons or children's or boys or girls. - Question: what if the doctors doing the aborting or doing the chopping up do actually view them as persons? Is that possible?

I've yet to meet someone that is pro abortion. Do we have them in this thread?

Have we identified these people yet Saints?

 

[trogg78]

watched a few of the videos, give them a big meh. whatever. Haters gonna hate. Just seems like part of the cost of doing business imo.

Did we link the FactCheck.org article yet? Seems like the videos were edited to make the PP look like monsters.

And suddenly the thread dies....

The Right falls on its face yet again. It is fascinating to watch this mass of people make the same mistakes over and over and over.

That came out July 21st. The reason it's getting no traction is likely because it's Annenberg. It's awful tough to be left-wing darlings, write hit pieces on conservative media (including the Wall Street Journal) and have anybody take you seriously as a non-partisan outfit.

It's like that Charles Ramsey-led organization Maurile linked to that day about right-wing violence. Was it LARFF? OR LAFF? Or something like that. Anybody can dress up the naked truth, it's the dupes buying it. Funny, matuski, you showed up in that thread and declared some sort of weird and cosmic victory, too.

Wonder if you're...making the same mistake over and over and over.

What language is this? Can someone translate what he is saying?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here's something odd I've noticed in reading these discussions. The pro abortion folks are pretty determined to make clear *they* personally do not think these fetuses are more than tissue, these are not persons or children's or boys or girls. - Question: what if the doctors doing the aborting or doing the chopping up do actually view them as persons? Is that possible?

I've yet to meet someone that is pro abortion. Do we have them in this thread?

Have we identified these people yet Saints?

Terminology. Language. I know what you're saying, prochoicers aren't for actual abortions. What are we aborting again? A fetus? A fetus that is doing what? Usually actions are aborted, not things. Don't you agree? Define "abort" for me outside the medical context.

Are prochoicers all for abortion being legal all up until the T -1 second? Are all prochoices all for abortion period up until the T -1 second? No and no. Are some prochoicers for these things? Yes and yes.

Do prolifers believe in choice for mothers who might abort? Yes they do, a mother can choose, prolifers are for mothers choosing not to abort. Guess what, prolifers are now prochoicers.

We can use language any way we want to define ourselves to look good and to make our intellectual opponents look bad. One thing we can plainly say, in ordinary English, is some people are in favor of others legally aborting a fetus from doing x. y. z, and some people are against it.

 

[shader]

Here's something odd I've noticed in reading these discussions. The pro abortion folks are pretty determined to make clear *they* personally do not think these fetuses are more than tissue, these are not persons or children's or boys or girls. - Question: what if the doctors doing the aborting or doing the chopping up do actually view them as persons? Is that possible?

I've yet to meet someone that is pro abortion. Do we have them in this thread?

Have we identified these people yet Saints?

Terminology. Language. I know what you're saying, prochoicers aren't for actual abortions. What are we aborting again? A fetus? A fetus that is doing what? Usually actions are aborted, not things. Don't you agree? Define "abort" for me outside the medical context.

Are prochoicers all for abortion being legal all up until the T -1 second? Are all prochoices all for abortion period up until the T -1 second? No and no. Are some prochoicers for these things? Yes and yes.

Do prolifers believe in choice for mothers who might abort? Yes they do, a mother can choose, prolifers are for mothers choosing not to abort. Guess what, prolifers are now prochoicers.

We can use language any way we want to define ourselves to look good and to make our intellectual opponents look bad. One thing we can plainly say, in ordinary English, is some people are in favor of others legally aborting a fetus from doing x. y. z, and some people are against it.

Over 700,000 people do it every year. But no one is actually for it!

 

[Todd Andrews]

It seems almost impossible to discuss this subject without insulting or demonizing the other side. I hate it. I know that most of you here who are pro-life are well meaning, and simply want to save lives. Most of us who are pro-choice want to protect the rights of women to make their own decisions.

Is there no way that we can discuss this issue, reasonably, with respect for each other?

You are right, it's probably a losing battle. I've rarely stayed in an abortion thread longer than 2 or 3 posts because I get fired up. Probably should have learned my lesson, but these videos are a bit much. Seeing doctors poke around in dead baby parts is tough to handle for me. I personally have no idea how anyone can possibly see that and tell themselves that it's not a person. That disconnect is the bridge that can't be overcome I suppose.

Personally, I don't see a lot of honesty coming from your side Tim. I see blind support of an organization. It's like you guys are digging your heels into the ground. What if all the videos end up coming out (I think there are 9 or more) and they show clear criminal wrongdoing? At what point will some of you admit that this organization needs to clean up it's act?

I have to constantly remind myself that somehow you guys have talked yourselves into thinking that these aren't really people, that they are just body parts or a fetus or something (I don't know what goes on when you make this decision). You have to understand that when we see doctors poking through baby parts, it's just as disgusting at 15-20 weeks as it is if they were 50 weeks. Just like you'd find it hard to support people that took newborn babies, killed them and dissected them, I find it hard to find common ground with people that are ok with this.

They are absolutely potential developing people and they are killed by an abortion. Which should be legal. No denial here.

 

[Bucky86]

I can't decide which thread hass more interesting characters. This one or the deflategate thread?

 

[Amused to Death]

In one simple quote, Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B. sums up the hypocrisy in the 'pro-life' movement:

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In one simple quote, Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B. sums up the hypocrisy in the 'pro-life' movement:

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

Hm, that's not exactly what we would call a "pro choice" argument, though is it? If you wade into morality waters you need to be prepared to swim in them.

 

[General Tso]

In one simple quote, Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B. sums up the hypocrisy in the 'pro-life' movement:

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

Thanks for posting that. Great quote.

 

[Amused to Death]

In one simple quote, Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B. sums up the hypocrisy in the 'pro-life' movement:

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

Hm, that's not exactly what we would call a "pro choice" argument, though is it? If you wade into morality waters you need to be prepared to swim in them.

Personally I could never consent to an abortion. However, I don't think everyone needs to live by my moralities. There are lots of things I do that others may not agree with. I won't let that stop me though. De-funding PP or reversing Roe v. Wade won't stop abortions - it would only make them more dangerous and obtainable only for the rich.

As for this topic, the video....if laws are being broken then prosecute. But this should not be a political issue for an agenda that already existed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In one simple quote, Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B. sums up the hypocrisy in the 'pro-life' movement:

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

Thanks for posting that. Great quote.

I'm going to agree and say it's a great quote and a good point.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In one simple quote, Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B. sums up the hypocrisy in the 'pro-life' movement:

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

Hm, that's not exactly what we would call a "pro choice" argument, though is it? If you wade into morality waters you need to be prepared to swim in them.

Personally I could never consent to an abortion. However, I don't think everyone needs to live by my moralities. There are lots of things I do that others may not agree with. I won't let that stop me though. De-funding PP or reversing Roe v. Wade won't stop abortions - it would only make them more dangerous and obtainable only for the rich.

As for this topic, the video....if laws are being broken then prosecute. But this should not be a political issue for an agenda that already existed.

Really lots of issues here that overlap and it's not always clear what people are talking about - abortion, the definition of life, Roe, saving lives, PP, the videos, the PP statements in the videos, funding/defunding.

 

[General Tso]

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/07/31/whoah-federal-judge-blocks-cms-releasing-video-of-fully-intact-fetus-evidence-indicating-born-alive-infants-harvested-by-stem-express/

 

[Soonerman]

In one simple quote, Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B. sums up the hypocrisy in the 'pro-life' movement:

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421894/allies-and-enemies-mona-charen

"Hidden within this argument is the notion that a baby is better off dead than poor, but the Left has been backing off this claim ever since explicit arguments for eugenics fell out of favor. Moreover, the reliance on state-funded welfare as the cornerstone of compassion ignores not just the Christian community’s enormous private generosity but also the economic reality that the free enterprise system has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic engine devised by the mind of man. It’s just pure slander to claim that pro-life activists don’t want children fed, educated, or housed. But it’s a mistake to treat this argument as if it’s made in good faith. Want proof that it’s nothing but a misdirection? Ask an abortion activist whether they’d agree to outlaw abortion at any level of taxation or welfare. Given that abortion radicals are happy to see women abort even to preserve a short-lived career as a professional volleyball player, it’s clear that a community could reach a level of peak liberal compassion and they’d still zealously guard the right to kill with impunity. After all, the true concern isn’t for child welfare but for transient notions of adult fulfillment, and no level of taxation will cure the selfishness of the human heart."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/07/31/whoah-federal-judge-blocks-cms-releasing-video-of-fully-intact-fetus-evidence-indicating-born-alive-infants-harvested-by-stem-express/

Ok TRO until August 3rd.

But USDC Northern District of CA. So likely they keep it enforced. Btw this is not all the PP videos I believe just the ones vs the vendor.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Full context and transcript from November 2004:

MOYERS: Dobson, Falwell, Robertson and a lot of secular pundits and columnists are saying that this election was decided by moral issues. Do you think moral issues were that decisive in this campaign?

CHITTISTER: Well, I don't believe I'm not exactly sure that they were as decisive in the end. And I'm not sure that there's any way we can measure that. But even if I say, "Yes, they were," the fact of the matter is that they are some moral issues, they're not all moral issues.

The fact of the matter is that they're all in contention with something else which is also a moral value and also equally important unless you put it completely out of your mind or your heart. For instance, let's look at the abortion question. I'm opposed to abortion.

But I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking. If all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed and why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.

MOYERS: This seems to me to be the dilemma of American democracy today and of American religion. That there are dogmatists who do not want to admit that the other side might have some claim to credibility.

CHITTISTER: Dogmatism will always get you there. Ask a Catholic. We've been there.

We do it well. It was dogmatism that split us in the first place in the 16th century. It's dogmatism, this whole notion that there is a truth, the truth. that is the eternal truth and the unquestionable truth means that whatever the holy spirit, whatever, whatever the impulses of a creating God goes on creating. We have to close our mind to those.

We learned at the end of a telescope that it got us nowhere. Galileo tried to tell us then scientifically, look at this. We didn't want to listen.

The religion threw Galileo into house arrest for two or three years. Why? Not because of his science, that's silliness. Because of his theology. The theology taught that we were the center of the universe. We were God's rational and best creatures. When the little telescope, when he handed the Pope a telescope and said, "Look, we're not the center," they wouldn't even pick up the telescope. That's dogmatism. And that's what we have to be very careful of.

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript346_full.html

- So the good Sister was opposed to abortion, but again - language and dogmatism.

 

[matuski]

watched a few of the videos, give them a big meh. whatever. Haters gonna hate. Just seems like part of the cost of doing business imo.

Did we link the FactCheck.org article yet? Seems like the videos were edited to make the PP look like monsters.

And suddenly the thread dies....

The Right falls on its face yet again. It is fascinating to watch this mass of people make the same mistakes over and over and over.

That came out July 21st. The reason it's getting no traction is likely because it's Annenberg. It's awful tough to be left-wing darlings, write hit pieces on conservative media (including the Wall Street Journal) and have anybody take you seriously as a non-partisan outfit.

It's like that Charles Ramsey-led organization Maurile linked to that day about right-wing violence. Was it LARFF? OR LAFF? Or something like that. Anybody can dress up the naked truth, it's the dupes buying it. Funny, matuski, you showed up in that thread and declared some sort of weird and cosmic victory, too.

Wonder if you're...making the same mistake over and over and over.

You have left shader in the dust in the contest to make the least coherent post this week.

 

[rockaction]

watched a few of the videos, give them a big meh. whatever. Haters gonna hate. Just seems like part of the cost of doing business imo.

Did we link the FactCheck.org article yet? Seems like the videos were edited to make the PP look like monsters.

And suddenly the thread dies....

The Right falls on its face yet again. It is fascinating to watch this mass of people make the same mistakes over and over and over.

That came out July 21st. The reason it's getting no traction is likely because it's Annenberg. It's awful tough to be left-wing darlings, write hit pieces on conservative media (including the Wall Street Journal) and have anybody take you seriously as a non-partisan outfit.

It's like that Charles Ramsey-led organization Maurile linked to that day about right-wing violence. Was it LARFF? OR LAFF? Or something like that. Anybody can dress up the naked truth, it's the dupes buying it. Funny, matuski, you showed up in that thread and declared some sort of weird and cosmic victory, too.

Wonder if you're...making the same mistake over and over and over.

Uh.. what.

It's the Annenberg Foundation that heads the Factcheck.org site. It's the same foundation whose head once wrote this book. http://www.amazon.com/Echo-Chamber-Limbaugh-Conservative-Establishment/dp/0195398602/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438399218&sr=1-1&keywords=echo+chamber

She called the WSJ an "echo chamber" that was shielded from other conflicting information. It's a joke. The WSJ op-ed is legendary. If anything, the NYT op-ed page is an echo chamber of a higher order.

It's another organization headed by largely partisan figures passing themselves off as non-partisan.

It's just like in the right-wing extremist thread where you came in and declared victory about an organization headed by left-wing law enforcement agents that said that right-wing extremism was more of a threat to domestic security than Islam.

And you and trogg78 wouldn't have any trouble understanding this if you'd clicked the link and done any basic research other than beyond "hurr durr" Factcheck.org!

It's like citing Guttmacher Institute statistics about abortion, which somebody did upthread.

 

[matuski]

watched a few of the videos, give them a big meh. whatever. Haters gonna hate. Just seems like part of the cost of doing business imo.

Did we link the FactCheck.org article yet? Seems like the videos were edited to make the PP look like monsters.

And suddenly the thread dies....

The Right falls on its face yet again. It is fascinating to watch this mass of people make the same mistakes over and over and over.

That came out July 21st. The reason it's getting no traction is likely because it's Annenberg. It's awful tough to be left-wing darlings, write hit pieces on conservative media (including the Wall Street Journal) and have anybody take you seriously as a non-partisan outfit.

It's like that Charles Ramsey-led organization Maurile linked to that day about right-wing violence. Was it LARFF? OR LAFF? Or something like that. Anybody can dress up the naked truth, it's the dupes buying it. Funny, matuski, you showed up in that thread and declared some sort of weird and cosmic victory, too.

Wonder if you're...making the same mistake over and over and over.

Uh.. what.

It's the Annenberg Foundation that heads the Factcheck.org site. It's the same foundation whose head once wrote this book. http://www.amazon.com/Echo-Chamber-Limbaugh-Conservative-Establishment/dp/0195398602/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438399218&sr=1-1&keywords=echo+chamber

She called the WSJ an "echo chamber" that was shielded from other conflicting information. It's a joke. The WSJ op-ed is legendary. If anything, the NYT op-ed page is an echo chamber of a higher order.

It's another organization headed by largely partisan figures passing themselves off as non-partisan.

It's just like in the right-wing extremist thread where you came in and declared victory about an organization headed by left-wing law enforcement agents that said that right-wing extremism was more of a threat to domestic security than Islam.

And you and trogg78 wouldn't have any trouble understanding this if you'd clicked the link and done any basic research other than beyond "hurr durr" Factcheck.org!

It's like citing Guttmacher Institute statistics about abortion, which somebody did upthread.

... that gibberish was an attack on factcheck?

 

[rockaction]

watched a few of the videos, give them a big meh. whatever. Haters gonna hate. Just seems like part of the cost of doing business imo.

Did we link the FactCheck.org article yet? Seems like the videos were edited to make the PP look like monsters.

And suddenly the thread dies....

The Right falls on its face yet again. It is fascinating to watch this mass of people make the same mistakes over and over and over.

That came out July 21st. The reason it's getting no traction is likely because it's Annenberg. It's awful tough to be left-wing darlings, write hit pieces on conservative media (including the Wall Street Journal) and have anybody take you seriously as a non-partisan outfit.

It's like that Charles Ramsey-led organization Maurile linked to that day about right-wing violence. Was it LARFF? OR LAFF? Or something like that. Anybody can dress up the naked truth, it's the dupes buying it. Funny, matuski, you showed up in that thread and declared some sort of weird and cosmic victory, too.

Wonder if you're...making the same mistake over and over and over.

Uh.. what.

It's the Annenberg Foundation that heads the Factcheck.org site. It's the same foundation whose head once wrote this book. http://www.amazon.com/Echo-Chamber-Limbaugh-Conservative-Establishment/dp/0195398602/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438399218&sr=1-1&keywords=echo+chamber

She called the WSJ an "echo chamber" that was shielded from other conflicting information. It's a joke. The WSJ op-ed is legendary. If anything, the NYT op-ed page is an echo chamber of a higher order.

It's another organization headed by largely partisan figures passing themselves off as non-partisan.

It's just like in the right-wing extremist thread where you came in and declared victory about an organization headed by left-wing law enforcement agents that said that right-wing extremism was more of a threat to domestic security than Islam.

And you and trogg78 wouldn't have any trouble understanding this if you'd clicked the link and done any basic research other than beyond "hurr durr" Factcheck.org!

It's like citing Guttmacher Institute statistics about abortion, which somebody did upthread.

... that gibberish was an attack on factcheck?

Uh, can you respond with anything substantive, ever?

 

[matuski]

The factcheck link brings to light that the videos were edited, and tells us what the videos edited.

Are you saying you don't believe the videos were edited or are you saying they are lying about the edited parts.. or both?

Substantive enough?

 

[matuski]

Rockaction doubling down on the edited videos by trying to discredit the unedited versions.

 

[rockaction]

I'm saying it's getting no play because of the organization behind the claims of the editing. They're the only organization to definitively claim so, along with PP.

Even the WH, Real Clear Politics, etc., has been "unsure."

I'm not hanging my hat on any of the actors here. I wouldn't trust Annenberg and PP as far as I could throw them, and I'm certainly not trusting a bunch of "sting" pro-life activists.

 

[rockaction]

Rockaction doubling down on the edited videos by trying to discredit the unedited versions.

Whose gibberish what?

 

[tommyboy]

in a week, no one will be defending PP

 

[tommyGunZ]

watched a few of the videos, give them a big meh. whatever. Haters gonna hate. Just seems like part of the cost of doing business imo.

Did we link the FactCheck.org article yet? Seems like the videos were edited to make the PP look like monsters.

And suddenly the thread dies....

The Right falls on its face yet again. It is fascinating to watch this mass of people make the same mistakes over and over and over.

That came out July 21st. The reason it's getting no traction is likely because it's Annenberg. It's awful tough to be left-wing darlings, write hit pieces on conservative media (including the Wall Street Journal) and have anybody take you seriously as a non-partisan outfit.

It's like that Charles Ramsey-led organization Maurile linked to that day about right-wing violence. Was it LARFF? OR LAFF? Or something like that. Anybody can dress up the naked truth, it's the dupes buying it. Funny, matuski, you showed up in that thread and declared some sort of weird and cosmic victory, too.

Wonder if you're...making the same mistake over and over and over.

Uh.. what.

It's the Annenberg Foundation that heads the Factcheck.org site. It's the same foundation whose head once wrote this book. http://www.amazon.com/Echo-Chamber-Limbaugh-Conservative-Establishment/dp/0195398602/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438399218&sr=1-1&keywords=echo+chamber

She called the WSJ an "echo chamber" that was shielded from other conflicting information. It's a joke. The WSJ op-ed is legendary. If anything, the NYT op-ed page is an echo chamber of a higher order.

It's another organization headed by largely partisan figures passing themselves off as non-partisan.

It's just like in the right-wing extremist thread where you came in and declared victory about an organization headed by left-wing law enforcement agents that said that right-wing extremism was more of a threat to domestic security than Islam.

And you and trogg78 wouldn't have any trouble understanding this if you'd clicked the link and done any basic research other than beyond "hurr durr" Factcheck.org!

It's like citing Guttmacher Institute statistics about abortion, which somebody did upthread.

Wait, you're holding up Rupert Murdoch's WSJ op Ed space as a bastion of objective, rational thought?

 

[rockaction]

Wait, you're holding up Rupert Murdoch's WSJ op Ed space as a bastion of objective, rational thought?

No, it's obviously right-of-center. But to write a book and to insinuate -- or outright call it an "echo chamber" that has problems with facts is another thing, which is what the woman at Annenberg did.

I'm sure Maureen Dowd, Gail Collins, Tony Kushner, Charles Blow, Nick Kristof, Paul Krugman and the rest of the gang at the New York Times op-ed page enjoyed that a great deal.

 

[culdeus]

in a week, no one will be defending PP

Why? What are they supposed to do with the tissue? Donate it? Fine.

That they made a few bucks isn't the end of the world to most people.

 

[matuski]

in a week, no one will be defending PP

Why? What are they supposed to do with the tissue? Donate it? Fine.

That they made a few bucks isn't the end of the world to most people.

I also doubt anyone will be defending PP in a week, the videos have now lost whatever concocted sense of controversy they had in the first place.

 

[Chadstroma]

I have not seen anyone attempt to explain how someone might negoitate a price when all you are legally able to do is be reimbursed for the cost. Cost is not negoitable. It is a fixed amount. If someone asks you how much X is- the only right answer is $XX.XX or "I am not sure, I will have to look into that." and not "Why don't you tell me how much you would pay because I don't want to get lowballed."

I am real curious how this is spinned.

 

[matuski]

I have not seen anyone attempt to explain how someone might negoitate a price when all you are legally able to do is be reimbursed for the cost. Cost is not negoitable. It is a fixed amount. If someone asks you how much X is- the only right answer is $XX.XX or "I am not sure, I will have to look into that." and not "Why don't you tell me how much you would pay because I don't want to get lowballed."

I am real curious how this is spinned.

Four experts in the field of human tissue procurement told us the price range discussed in the video — $30 to $100 per patient — represents a reasonable fee. “There’s no way there’s a profit at that price,” said Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository.”

$30-$100... doesn't seem like there was much negotiating at all.

I imagine the number in the range would depend on each individual case/patient/sample.

 

[Amused to Death]

I wish everyone who was all fired up about this hated abortion enough to actually want to do something to reduce abortions rather than just whine about PP.

I wonder how many of these people support abstinence only birth control.

 

[culdeus]

I wish everyone who was all fired up about this hated abortion enough to actually want to do something to reduce abortions rather than just whine about PP.

I had a vasectomy. Does that count?

 

[rockaction]

I think these are all non sequiturs. I think some people might not be fired up over abortion but over a federally-funded organization accused of the for-profit sale of fetal tissue and body parts. Or people might simply dislike the use of federal funds to promote Planned Parenthood's version of "hygiene." Like I've said several times, I'm pro-choice (and even pro-sex education! -- so long as it isn't on the public dime) but I also object to taxpayer funds being used for controversial issues that involve questions of abortion and viability, which are inextricably linked with religion and the religious impulse. That's my policy preference.

I do believe PP is ignoble, from its inception to its practices to its advocacy to its...

 

[Johnnymac]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTyeBQXk8V4

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Mat,, Chad, the $30-100 number is an industry average. There's no reason this one particular clinic shouldn't have a set figure which reflects their actual legal cost and every clinic should have a way to check with the state to ensure they are working with a certified tissue company, and there's also reason why the whole thing should not be handled over lunch and wine. A phone call should be sufficient.

For those defending PP's tone keep in mind they have actually apologized for the tone.

 

[General Tso]

I wish everyone who was all firedup about this hated abortion enough to actually want to do something to reduce abortions rather than just whine about PP.

When was the last time you heard an anti-teen pregnancy campaign on TV or the radio? We spend so much time and energy blaming most of the problems in the black communities on racism, when in reality the crux of the problem since the 1960's has been the meteoric rise in single parent families, and much of this is due to teenage pregnancies. In 1965, when the Moynihan Report was published concluding that this was the main problem in black communities, the percent of black children born out of wedlock was 26%. Today that number is 72%. Today's percentage of white children born out of wedlock is bad (29%) but nowhere's near that 72% number.One of the biggest bugaboos on the Right is abortion. One of the biggest on the Left is teenage pregnancy in the black community. Rather than address that common issue directly and, you know, SOLVE THE PROBLEM, both sides just piss and moan and deflect to other issues.

 

[Boston]

I wish everyone who was all fired up about this hated abortion enough to actually want to do something to reduce abortions rather than just whine about PP.

How about some personal responsibility here...that always seems to be missing in this topic...make sure you have birth control...if not than make sure the guy pulls-out...if you can't figure that out than maybe you should keep your pants on because whether it's an abortion, a teen pregnancy or simply an unwanted adult pregnancy these results don't happen magically...

 

[timschochet]

Boston, some of us believe that for many women, having an abortion IS an act of personal responsibility.

 

[Boston]

Boston, some of us believe that for many women, having an abortion IS an act of personal responsibility.

If you used contraception and it failed than you can travel that path...if you are using it as a form of contraception than I just don't see it...

 

[shader]

watched a few of the videos, give them a big meh. whatever. Haters gonna hate. Just seems like part of the cost of doing business imo.

Did we link the FactCheck.org article yet? Seems like the videos were edited to make the PP look like monsters.

And suddenly the thread dies....

The Right falls on its face yet again. It is fascinating to watch this mass of people make the same mistakes over and over and over.

That came out July 21st. The reason it's getting no traction is likely because it's Annenberg. It's awful tough to be left-wing darlings, write hit pieces on conservative media (including the Wall Street Journal) and have anybody take you seriously as a non-partisan outfit.

It's like that Charles Ramsey-led organization Maurile linked to that day about right-wing violence. Was it LARFF? OR LAFF? Or something like that. Anybody can dress up the naked truth, it's the dupes buying it. Funny, matuski, you showed up in that thread and declared some sort of weird and cosmic victory, too.

Wonder if you're...making the same mistake over and over and over.

Uh.. what.

It's the Annenberg Foundation that heads the Factcheck.org site. It's the same foundation whose head once wrote this book. http://www.amazon.com/Echo-Chamber-Limbaugh-Conservative-Establishment/dp/0195398602/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438399218&sr=1-1&keywords=echo+chamber

She called the WSJ an "echo chamber" that was shielded from other conflicting information. It's a joke. The WSJ op-ed is legendary. If anything, the NYT op-ed page is an echo chamber of a higher order.

It's another organization headed by largely partisan figures passing themselves off as non-partisan.

It's just like in the right-wing extremist thread where you came in and declared victory about an organization headed by left-wing law enforcement agents that said that right-wing extremism was more of a threat to domestic security than Islam.

And you and trogg78 wouldn't have any trouble understanding this if you'd clicked the link and done any basic research other than beyond "hurr durr" Factcheck.org!

It's like citing Guttmacher Institute statistics about abortion, which somebody did upthread.

... that gibberish was an attack on factcheck?

Uh, can you respond with anything substantive, ever?

I've never seen anything substantive from him in years. Except when he claimed he could beat Pacquiao in a fight.

 

[Bucky86]

Boston, some of us believe that for many women, having an abortion IS an act of personal responsibility.

If you used contraception and it failed than you can travel that path...if you are using it as a form of contraception than I just don't see it...

Instead of death panels we can have abortion panels.

 

[timschochet]

I've been thinking about Saints' use of the term "pro-abortion" and how so many pro-choice people here objected to that term.

For myself, I don't object to it. I believe I am pro-abortion in many cases. I think that young girls, especially those under the age of 20, who lack the emotional maturity or economic means to take care of a baby should be encouraged to have abortions. I believe that older women who also lack the economic means to deal with a new baby should be encouraged to have abortions. The victims of rape and incest should in most cases be encouraged to have abortions. I do not believe that either they or our society in general benefit from unwanted children. And I believe that late term pregnancies in which hydrocephalus or other serious diseases that could harm the women are discovered should absolutely result in abortions in most instances.

Those are my thoughts on the matter; they're probably going to offend some people here, but it's important to be honest.

 

[shader]

I've been thinking about Saints' use of the term "pro-abortion" and how so many pro-choice people here objected to that term.

For myself, I don't object to it. I believe I am pro-abortion in many cases. I think that young girls, especially those under the age of 20, who lack the emotional maturity or economic means to take care of a baby should be encouraged to have abortions. I believe that older women who also lack the economic means to deal with a new baby should be encouraged to have abortions. The victims of rape and incest should in most cases be encouraged to have abortions. I do not believe that either they or our society in general benefit from unwanted children. And I believe that late term pregnancies in which hydrocephalus or other serious diseases that could harm the women are discovered should absolutely result in abortions in most instances.

Those are my thoughts on the matter; they're probably going to offend some people here, but it's important to be honest.

At least you are honest

 

[General Tso]

I've been thinking about Saints' use of the term "pro-abortion" and how so many pro-choice people here objected to that term.

For myself, I don't object to it. I believe I am pro-abortion in many cases. I think that young girls, especially those under the age of 20, who lack the emotional maturity or economic means to take care of a baby should be encouraged to have abortions. I believe that older women who also lack the economic means to deal with a new baby should be encouraged to have abortions. The victims of rape and incest should in most cases be encouraged to have abortions. I do not believe that either they or our society in general benefit from unwanted children. And I believe that late term pregnancies in which hydrocephalus or other serious diseases that could harm the women are discovered should absolutely result in abortions in most instances.

Those are my thoughts on the matter; they're probably going to offend some people here, but it's important to be honest.

Words are powerful, and I would personally hate to be labelled as pro-abortion. I am 100% pro-choice, but abortion for me is a last resort, a pyrrhic victory if you will. For me the pro-abortion label implies that the person doesn't really have any semblence of guilt or remorse about the act, and that for me would be a very insulting implication. I know it would keep me up at night, probably give me nightmares, completely screw with my Catholic guilt, and probably end up with me on a therapist's couch. And Tim, knowing you the way I do, I know you would wrestle with all these issues as well, which is why the term pro-abortion really isn't fair in my opinion.

 

[rockaction]

I've been thinking about Saints' use of the term "pro-abortion" and how so many pro-choice people here objected to that term.

For myself, I don't object to it. I believe I am pro-abortion in many cases. I think that young girls, especially those under the age of 20, who lack the emotional maturity or economic means to take care of a baby should be encouraged to have abortions. I believe that older women who also lack the economic means to deal with a new baby should be encouraged to have abortions. The victims of rape and incest should in most cases be encouraged to have abortions. I do not believe that either they or our society in general benefit from unwanted children. And I believe that late term pregnancies in which hydrocephalus or other serious diseases that could harm the women are discovered should absolutely result in abortions in most instances.

Those are my thoughts on the matter; they're probably going to offend some people here, but it's important to be honest.

I'll go with that, even though I fundamentally disagree with your point. So I'm anti-abortion, I just don't think the government should get in the way of reproduction that intrusively. I don't think any promise to limit the punitive side of enforcement of anti-abortion laws to suppliers of abortions alone would ever stand. They'd do what they did with the drug war, which is to go after the purchaser to get to the supplier.

Plus, black markets and basic health concerns. Plus creeping legislation that neglects taking into account the health of the mother and rape or incest, issues which legislators have shown a remarkable lack of interest in when passing partial-birth abortion laws.

Plus, a whole host of things about limiting the protections of the 4th and 5th Amendments plus the whittling away of the penumbral notions of privacy within the Bill of Rights gives me major pause.

But if we're speaking temperamentally; I'm anti-abortion.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I've been thinking about Saints' use of the term "pro-abortion" and how so many pro-choice people here objected to that term.

For myself, I don't object to it. I believe I am pro-abortion in many cases. I think that young girls, especially those under the age of 20, who lack the emotional maturity or economic means to take care of a baby should be encouraged to have abortions. I believe that older women who also lack the economic means to deal with a new baby should be encouraged to have abortions. The victims of rape and incest should in most cases be encouraged to have abortions. I do not believe that either they or our society in general benefit from unwanted children. And I believe that late term pregnancies in which hydrocephalus or other serious diseases that could harm the women are discovered should absolutely result in abortions in most instances.

Those are my thoughts on the matter; they're probably going to offend some people here, but it's important to be honest.

Words are powerful, and I would personally hate to be labelled as pro-abortion. I am 100% pro-choice, but abortion for me is a last resort, a pyrrhic victory if you will. For me the pro-abortion label implies that the person doesn't really have any semblence of guilt or remorse about the act, and that for me would be a very insulting implication. I know it would keep me up at night, probably give me nightmares, completely screw with my Catholic guilt, and probably end up with me on a therapist's couch. And Tim, knowing you the way I do, I know you would wrestle with all these issues as well, which is why the term pro-abortion really isn't fair in my opinion.

Literally, no it's not fair, I provided an explanation above which Tim may have skipped. I don't even see myself as holding any label on this, I don't view myself in any way here. My main point was that prolifers can be in favor of choice, and prochoicers can be in favor of life, a person can be prochoice and yet personally say they would never approve of an abortion for themselves or their SO/spouse, and whether abortion can be legal can cover a gamut or range from the moment after conception all the way up to the minute before birth. There is no label that accurately represents every position.

 

[Chadstroma]

I have not seen anyone attempt to explain how someone might negoitate a price when all you are legally able to do is be reimbursed for the cost. Cost is not negoitable. It is a fixed amount. If someone asks you how much X is- the only right answer is $XX.XX or "I am not sure, I will have to look into that." and not "Why don't you tell me how much you would pay because I don't want to get lowballed."

I am real curious how this is spinned.

Four experts in the field of human tissue procurement told us the price range discussed in the video — $30 to $100 per patient — represents a reasonable fee. “There’s no way there’s a profit at that price,” said Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository.”

$30-$100... doesn't seem like there was much negotiating at all.

I imagine the number in the range would depend on each individual case/patient/sample.

Simple accounting though.

Doing THIS costs us X amount. Anything above X is profit. The cost ought to be fixed or averaged and then that is the amount. No negoitation and potential for low balling. No wining and dining needed. A simple, it will costs us on average $80 to cover the costs of time spent to explain to the patient, paperwork, procedure and transportation. If you want this the donated tissue, this is the amount we need to cover our costs in doing so.

To me the simple act of negoitation is what is the most damaging. Perhaps not legally but it shows impropriety to me.

Does this impact the question of abortion? I understand it will be used to do so but I am not sure anyone will be swayed from their previous positions if they put any thought into it already. This is more about a legal issue with PP than the abortion issue at hand.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

By the way the prochoice political crowd has now moved to calling prolifers "anti-choice." These are basically word games that politicize us and keep us from discussing rationally. There is a lot of money wrapped up in the political side and in people just being paid to wage media wars and political fundraising campaigns on just this.

 

[rockaction]

By the way the prochoice political crowd has now moved to calling prolifers "anti-choice." These are basically word games that politicize us and keep us from discussing rationally. There is a lot of money wrapped up in the political side and in people just being paid to wage media wars and political fundraising campaigns on just this.

In all earnestness, I think you're flipping the two. My understanding was that "pro-choice" came first as a linguistic construct, defining those opposed as "anti-choice," and as a reaction to this, some savvy people decided that "pro-life" needed to be the term of art. The language game works both ways, as you point out in the last clause to your sentence. Massive money. Massive sloganeering involved.