Selling murdered baby parts for profit and other connected things

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by DSK

Although at first glance I agree if they were going to die anyway, why not utilize essentially organ donations. However, in your other thread about greedy capitalists, you mention the corrupting influence of profit.

Who is to say we wouldn't have migration towards harvesting body parts - same reasoning applies to not allowing third world poor people to donate me the kidneys I might need someday, and a broker who profits from it.

At the very least, it should be a completely open and well regulated market - with all transactions reported to the government, and the organizations subjected to constant government auditing.

No one is profiting. Watch the unedited videos. They make it clear several times that the only cost is to cover transportation of the tissue.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Sewer rat evidently attended the PP seminar where he learned how and when to use the "right" nomenclature to discuss these matters... from my previous post #381:


Now we have two Planned Parenthood docs on film talking about the value of human organs in a fetus whose humanity they would deny. In private the euphemisms disappear. “When they talk to the public or to women about to get an abortion they talk about ‘tissue,’ ” says Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life. "But when they talk to someone buying body parts, it’s about intact hearts, livers and lungs.”

.

Do doctors talk to patients the same way they talk to other doctors? No, they don't. If the use of different words is all you have, you're on thin ice.

I'll never understand the conservative attitude towards abortion. They will fight tooth and nail for a fetus, but won't fund a goddamn thing once it pops out and actually needs their help. Of course logic isn't their strong suit.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Sewer rat evidently attended the PP seminar where he learned how and when to use the "right" nomenclature to discuss these matters... from my previous post #381:


Now we have two Planned Parenthood docs on film talking about the value of human organs in a fetus whose humanity they would deny. In private the euphemisms disappear. “When they talk to the public or to women about to get an abortion they talk about ‘tissue,’ ” says Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life. "But when they talk to someone buying body parts, it’s about intact hearts, livers and lungs.”

.

The libs are good at double-speak and obfuscations, but NEVER the truth. That's why woomby the swishy walking, liar is a lib today. Just as the libs have tried to "rebrand" themselves as "progressives" to RUN from the liberal label, woomby calls himself a "social democrap" to cover his love for all things communist. He must figure that we don't understand the "nuance" of his lying ways. And they STILL haven't said what their definition of "is" is !

[johnjay]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/matt...port-abc-about

20/20 is a legit news org.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by johnjay

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/matt...port-abc-about

20/20 is a legit news org.

15 years ago! Republicans had control of both Houses of Congress and the White House. Do you recall if anyone has been prosecuted?

[DSK]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Do doctors talk to patients the same way they talk to other doctors? No, they don't. If the use of different words is all you have, you're on thin ice.

I'll never understand the conservative attitude towards abortion. They will fight tooth and nail for a fetus, but won't fund a goddamn thing once it pops out and actually needs their help. Of course logic isn't their strong suit.

Of course we think the fucking parents should take care of their kids or die trying. Why should I pay to raise future Democrats?

However, I believe abortion should be legal. After all as Ben Carson points out, most of the clinics are in poor areas. Ms. Sanger apparently felt the same way.

[i'va biggen]

You fuckers are getting like Paraguay where a 11 year old victim of rape was required to have the baby, and raise it.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by DSK

Of course we think the fucking parents should take care of their kids or die trying. Why should I pay to raise future Democrats?
.

From a purely monetary standpoint, it is cheaper to fund the abortion...but if you do not then it is cheaper to fund the health welfare and education of the child to grow up to be a productive member of society....yet most of the right wing loons choose the third and most expensive option. ..paying for their lengthy prison stay.

Never made sense to me. My brothers on the right must be into the private prison stock !

[DSK]

Originally Posted by WTF

From a purely monetary standpoint, it is cheaper to fund the abortion...but if you do not then it is cheaper to fund the health welfare and education of the child to grow up to be a productive member of society....yet most of the right wing loons choose the third and most expensive option. ..paying for their lengthy prison stay.

Never made sense to me. My brothers on the right must be into the private prison stock !

Why do you let the parents off the hook?

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You fuckers are getting like Paraguay where a 11 year old victim of rape was required to have the baby, and raise it.

Care to show a citation for that wildly inaccurate claim? If I'm not wrong, Paraguay is a left wing government isn't it.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Care to show a citation for that wildly inaccurate claim? If I'm not wrong, Paraguay is a left wing government isn't it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/10/americ...ape-pregnancy/

There's your citation.

As for left-wing, I'm not wasting my time explaining how not all liberals are left-wing. I know you'd like them to be, but they aren't. Otherwise, how do you explain this?

[i'va biggen]

Checkmate Judy......

[Yssup Rider]

Run away, JDrunk.
It's what you do most!

[johnjay]

The hardest part of communicating is first to agree upon a common set of words/definitions. Then, the disagreement can begin. I find it strange the present discussion cannot bridge past the difference between first trimester abortions and let's say third trimester abortions (which is the topic of this thread). Several posters continue to try to confuse the issue.

The practice in question is PP doing third trimester abortions, changing the procedure to not damage freshly dead(killed in utero) unborn babies, delicately caring for them so as to be undamaged (thereby keeping their commercial value), and selling them to others, who implant them in mice/rats and then resell them for profit.

This has been going on now for 15-20 years trusting PP at their word that they only involve tissue for research, (which implies a comparison to say a biopsy of your liver or other organ). These are not the same. The light has been shined on this practice and many people are horrified by the violation of their trust and the underlying practice.

The issue has many sides. The women's exclusive choice argument is the biggest cop out to actually thinking about the baby. The not taking care of the baby after it is born is another cop out/subterfuge/distraction to actually thinking about the baby.

After watching my 3 babies born, the callous nature and disregard of the baby amounts to its location in the final ~7-10 week term prior to the 36 week window of gestation. The location of the baby being inside a thin layer of skin or outside the thin layer of skin in the mothers belly.

I have not engaged in insults toward anyone and many respondents just insult comfortable that their thinking is right because they made their decision that they are right. Call it Cognitive dissonance, the dunning kreuger effect, laziness or just plainly political. I do not understand how many people cannot look at the pregnant mother with the third trimester baby and see a baby.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/10/americ...ape-pregnancy/

There's your citation.

As for left-wing, I'm not wasting my time explaining how not all liberals are left-wing. I know you'd like them to be, but they aren't. Otherwise, how do you explain this?

That may rank up there as one of the most stupid citations....I asked you to cite where the right wing in this country supports this, not that it happened in some third world country. Do you do this intentionally or are you just this stupid by nature?