I thought a FETUS isnt a LIVING thing,

[SgtSpiderMan]

Commonly? You sure live in a sterile, unfeeling world.

Are you under the impression that none of these aborted fetuses being torn to pieces with care in order to preserve their body parts for resale are not viable? None of them?

What do you think would be more valuable to a researcher. A nicely developed late term organ or an early partially formed one?

Haven't seen any real evidence either way. Please enlighten me.

"Called me out?" I was not aware that I, not Planned Parenthood was the subject of this particular controversy.

What "game?" You are the one who introduced the word "evidence' to the conversation saying that there is none. This is not a courtroom, Paul Mason.

Yes, you claimed they were doing something illegal. Phrodeau was actually the one who introduced the word evidence and since then you've been running scared.

 

[marshalt]

It's just pregnancy tissue, who gives a fuck?

 

[Tryharder62]

Well I did it. I watched the whole thing. Sorry but it didn't change my mind only gave me a headache.

 

[Yardley]

Yes, you claimed they were doing something illegal. Phrodeau was actually the one who introduced the word evidence and since then you've been running scared.

I'm "scared?" Where am I "running" to?

Just because you listen to her words (assuming you did) and somehow draw some alternate conclusion is not my problem. Not my job to convince you of anything. You well know that the sum total of what anyone knows about this tape is contained in the tape.

If you want to state what you think she meant by what she said, that might be a discussion.

"Nuh UH!!!!! PROVE it!!! Show me EVIDENCE!" is not a discussion. It is just deflection. But you knew that since you are the one deflecting.

I can see reasonable people not being vehemently opposed to abortion. I can see some pragmatic, societal reasons why it could be argued to benefit society. To be gleefully pro-abortion, jumping in to defend this is pathological.

I generally try to avoid trowing around inflammatory rhetoric on the abortion issue like "baby-killer" and "murder" and the only "calling out" done in this insipid little exchange that you are a marginal irritation to was me calling out phrodeau for using inciting, inflammatory dehumanizing language when he well knows that many people of good conscious would find that highly offensive.

I'm sure he doesn't need your little help as a second in this non-dual.

What other conclusion can one draw from the discussion that they take care to crush only the head to preserve this organ or that? Preserve for whom? I don't think the mother is going to want it in a jar as a souvenir.

Stem cell research? Controversial, but easily defensible. Using human remains assuming there was not direct consent from the mother? Or did you have "evidence" that the mothers agree to the vivisection and parceling out of their fetuses to for profit labs?

 

[Yardley]

It's just pregnancy tissue, who gives a fuck?

Exactly. Why do dumb bitches cry about a miscarriage? It is just a collection of pregnancy tissues. Idiotic couples spouting nonsense about how they "lost the baby." Am I right?

And whats up with this whole morbid funeral tradition? Once you are dead you are just a cadaver, I can't see any reason the funeral home can't use your corpse for a little recreation, or sell off some innards or what-not.

I wonder if the doctors sold off my appendix to some lab for research? I never got back my sperm sample either. Wonder if there are little Yardleys running around out there? Hell those are pre-pregnancy, not even tissues. They want to sell off my sperm without my consent, who am I to complain as long as no child support is involved.

 

[phrodeau]

OK, I found some evidence that hopefully will relieve your recent anxieties.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/07/15/3680714/planned-parenthood-controversy/

...This type of fetal tissue donation and research is legal, and has been for decades.

Eric Ferrero, the vice president of communications for Planned Parenthood, has dismissed the new video as a misleading portrayal of human tissue donation from activists who hope to smear Planned Parenthood’s reputation.

“Patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different,” Ferrero said in a statement. “There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.”

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I'm "scared?" Where am I "running" to?

Just because you listen to her words (assuming you did) and somehow draw some alternate conclusion is not my problem. Not my job to convince you of anything. You well know that the sum total of what anyone knows about this tape is contained in the tape.

If you want to state what you think she meant by what she said, that might be a discussion.

"Nuh UH!!!!! PROVE it!!! Show me EVIDENCE!" is not a discussion. It is just deflection. But you knew that since you are the one deflecting.

I can see reasonable people not being vehemently opposed to abortion. I can see some pragmatic, societal reasons why it could be argued to benefit society. To be gleefully pro-abortion, jumping in to defend this is pathological.

I generally try to avoid trowing around inflammatory rhetoric on the abortion issue like "baby-killer" and "murder" and the only "calling out" done in this insipid little exchange that you are a marginal irritation to was me calling out phrodeau for using inciting, inflammatory dehumanizing language when he well knows that many people of good conscious would find that highly offensive.

I'm sure he doesn't need your little help as a second in this non-dual.

What other conclusion can one draw from the discussion that they take care to crush only the head to preserve this organ or that? Preserve for whom? I don't think the mother is going to want it in a jar as a souvenir.

Stem cell research? Controversial, but easily defensible. Using human remains assuming there was not direct consent from the mother? Or did you have "evidence" that the mothers agree to the vivisection and parceling out of their fetuses to for profit labs?

Yes, you are, as evidenced by the above post. You're running from a discussion. You claimed that PP had done something illegal & had proof, but when asked for that proof, repeatedly, and you've resorted to inflammatory language, because let's be honest, that's all you've got.

Phrodeau doesn't need my help, never claimed that he did. The only one struggling here is you.

 

[Yardley]

Yes, you are, as evidenced by the above post. You're running from a discussion. You claimed that PP had done something illegal & had proof, but when asked for that proof, repeatedly, and you've resorted to inflammatory language, because let's be honest, that's all you've got.

Phrodeau doesn't need my help, never claimed that he did. The only one struggling here is you.

Do you do other tricks besides chase your own tail?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Do you do other tricks besides chase your own tail?

Anything but the topic of conversation.

 

[Yardley]

OK, I found some evidence that hopefully will relieve your recent anxieties.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/07/15/3680714/planned-parenthood-controversy/

A press release with spin produced by Planned Parenthood's PR firm saying what we all heard on the tape wasn't what we heard...printed in "think progress" of all places is "evidence," but the actual hidden camera tape of what she said is not evidence of her doing what she says she is doing?

OK. That does clear things up.

ETA: I'm having a bit of a deja vue moment... its coming to me...I'm remembering...what was it I said?

...just wait till planned parenthood gets their PR people to massage the story through a few outlets, I am sure you will have your "real evidence" that nothing at all improper, much less despicable, is going on.

Thanks for playing.

 

[phrodeau]

A press release with spin produced by Planned Parenthood's PR firm saying what we all heard on the tape wasn't what we heard...printed in "think progress" of all places is "evidence," but the actual hidden camera tape of what she said is not evidence of her doing what she says she is doing?

OK. That does clear things up.

ETA: I'm having a bit of a deja vue moment... its coming to me...I'm remembering...what was it I said?



Thanks for playing.

You seem to be concerned that something needs to be stopped. What is that exactly?

Abortions? Fetal tissue donations? Reimbursement for the expense of fetal tissue donations? The callous discussion of reimbursement for fetal tissue donations?

 

[Yardley]

You seem to be concerned that something needs to be stopped. What is that exactly?

Abortions? Fetal tissue donations? Reimbursement for the expense of fetal tissue donations? The callous discussion of reimbursement for fetal tissue donations?

Oh I see. You a buying the "it is just reimbursement" for "donations" spin. Wouldn't it have been easier to form that sentence initially instead of disingenuously asking for evidence that the words on the tape mean what the words would mean to anyone listening to the tape.

Since you and the good Sargent have been pressing for "EVIDENCE" from the tape that they are selling body parts, kindly provide "EVIDENCE" from the tape that she was talking about "reimbursements" for "donations." I didn't hear any of those words. The only person in a position to "donate" anything would be the patient since the patient owns the tissues. Show me on the tape "EVIDENCE" that they have consent from the patients to do such a thing.

How much is the reimbursement? What does the fee depend on? How is it that other than maybe a refrigerator to keep them in that Planned Parenthood incurs a "reimbursable expense" for removing "pregnancy tissues" that they already were paid to remove? Was removal of the kidneys and lungs not included in the abortion fee?

Was it all for bubblewrap? Ice? Saran Wrap? Baggies? Surely they could freight them to the FOR PROFIT labs COD?

PS a functioning liver is not "fetal tissue." It is a fetal organ.

 

[Yardley]

Anything but the topic of conversation.

Thats how you play your game? Is it fun?

I have to admit, you seem very proficient at discussing "anything but the topic of conversation." Thirty-two posts and although I can't recall all of them, I don't remember you once discussing what you saw and what you personally thought about what she said. A lot of disputing the idea that anyone else could form an opinion, but no opinion of your own expressed. I think that is a weird game. I don't really want to play with you. Sorry.

 

[phrodeau]

So do you think they should stop fetal tissue donations because they aren't getting permission from the fetuses?

 

[Yardley]

So do you think they should stop fetal tissue donations because they aren't getting permission from the fetuses?

Well, aren't you clever?

You are actually doing a better job of the Sgt's game, but it still is not that interesting.

You have provided no EVIDENCE still that these are "donations" and I assume you are aware that the fetus enters the abortion clinic inside mommy's tummy? The "patient" who would have to give consent would be mommy.

But you knew that, didn't you?

 

[phrodeau]

Well, aren't you clever?

You are actually doing a better job of the Sgt's game, but it still is not that interesting.

You have provided no EVIDENCE still that these are "donations" and I assume you are aware that the fetus enters the abortion clinic inside mommy's tummy? The "patient" who would have to give consent would be mommy.

But you knew that, didn't you?

I think the burden of proof lies with you. If you think anyone is profiting from fetal tissue trafficking, let's see your evidence. The video does not support that claim.

 

[Busybody]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKD4eS6VEAAN2bG.jpg

 

[Yardley]

I think the burden of proof lies with you. If you think anyone is profiting from fetal tissue trafficking, let's see your evidence. The video does not support that claim.

I think the burden of proof lies with you. If you think they are merely making donations and accepting reimbursement of only actual expenses, let's see your evidence. The video does not support that claim.

I don't know why I am bothering since you are obvious not serious in your approach to discussing this, but:

A press release saying the above is not evidentiary. On the other hand I just read babysitters post in another thread where she objects to "editing" and gives more of the transcript. In that transcript, she is specifically admitting that the individual clinics are charging whatever the market will bear in hopes of at least breaking even and babysitter doesn't seem to notice that she goes on to say that if they can do a little better than that, that helps defray the expenses of some other patient.

She is admitting that at a minimum it helps these clinics offset expenses of patients (not the costs of delivering these organs) and she admits that they do better than break even at times. The "edited" portions do not exonerate. Nowhere does she say they are donating anything to these for profit labs. Nowhere does she outline what their expenses are to convey these products. She is only talking about what they charge to do so, and that they charge what the market will bear. Any money they relieve is a windfall profit. All of the work to remove the organs was already done.

here is what babysitter thinks exonerates them:

meanwhile here is what was actually said



ACTOR: Okay, so, when you are, or the affiliate is determining what that monetary --

NUCATOLA: Yes.

ACTOR: So that it doesn't raise any question of this is what it's about, this is the main -- what - what price range would you --

NUCATOLA: You know, I'm -- I could throw a number out that's anywhere from $30 to $100 depending on the facility, and what's involved. It just has to do with space issues, are you sending someone there that's going to be doing everything, or is their staff going to be doing it? What exactly are they going to be doing? Is there shipping involved, is somebody coming to pick it up -- so, I think everybody just wants to -- it's really just about if anyone were ever to ask them, well what do you do for this $60, how can you justify that? Or are you basically just doing something completely egregious, that you should be doing for free. So it just needs to be justifiable.

And, look, we have 67 affiliates. They all have different practice environments, very different staff, and so with that number --

ACTOR: Did you say 67?

NUCATOLA: 67.

ACTOR: Okay. And so of that number, how much would personality of the personnel in there, would play into it as far as how we're speaking to them --

NUCATOLA: I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they're a non-profit, they just don't want to -- they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they're happy to do that. Really their bottom line is, they just, they want to break even. Every penny they save is just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn't get otherwise.

She is saying that the profits from this practice assist with the costs of running one of these non-profits. Argue, if you will, that that is a justifiable tradeoff because of the laudable aims of the organization, but to state that if they didn't do this, their net operating expenses would be the same is wrong.

 

[hashtag45]

eyer and BB... best buddies in their crusade against science, logic and free will

most of the time I'm on the same page as you.
But this time -and strangely enough- you have BB and the moderate conservatives on the same page.
Which makes me think : There must be something more to it

 

[Busybody]

Everyone knows what Sanger was and what Murder Inc is......Bad Shitter just keeps saying LIESLIESLIES, and thats that

She is a baby killer and baby limb seller, as is CuntClinton and Hussein Black Obama and all Dumz n Libz

 

[hashtag45]

who's Bad Shitter ? . lol…

 

[Busybody]

The baby killer, baby limb sellet you addressed in earlier post


Her name isnt bad baby sitter (she kills the babies), its Bad Shitter

 

[phrodeau]

I think the burden of proof lies with you. If you think they are merely making donations and accepting reimbursement of only actual expenses, let's see your evidence. The video does not support that claim.

I don't know why I am bothering since you are obvious not serious in your approach to discussing this, but:

A press release saying the above is not evidentiary. On the other hand I just read babysitters post in another thread where she objects to "editing" and gives more of the transcript. In that transcript, she is specifically admitting that the individual clinics are charging whatever the market will bear in hopes of at least breaking even and babysitter doesn't seem to notice that she goes on to say that if they can do a little better than that, that helps defray the expenses of some other patient.

She is admitting that at a minimum it helps these clinics offset expenses of patients (not the costs of delivering these organs) and she admits that they do better than break even at times. The "edited" portions do not exonerate. Nowhere does she say they are donating anything to these for profit labs. Nowhere does she outline what their expenses are to convey these products. She is only talking about what they charge to do so, and that they charge what the market will bear. Any money they relieve is a windfall profit. All of the work to remove the organs was already done.

here is what babysitter thinks exonerates them:



She is saying that the profits from this practice assist with the costs of running one of these non-profits. Argue, if you will, that that is a justifiable tradeoff because of the laudable aims of the organization, but to state that if they didn't do this, their net operating expenses would be the same is wrong.

At long last, you came up with something. You're concerned that some non-profit hospitals are earning a little money from tissue donations. That's the real issue here, right? Nothing to do with abortions and fetuses, it's that tiny bit of profit made by a non-profit organization. What fuckers.

 

[Busybody]

As a reminder, in 2012, Romney said DEFUND MURDER INC

He was bashed as ANTI WOMEN!

Why are tax payers funding them

 

[Busybody]

Disgraced Planned Parenthood Official Caught Selling Baby Body Parts Works For White House Staff…

planned-abortion1

Even less shocking, she’s a far-left moonbat.

Via Daily Caller:

Disgraced Planned Parenthood official Deborah Nucatola’s shocking personal work history is coming to light.

Records reveal that Nucatola was employed by a former White House staffer at the time that she was selling aborted baby fetus parts.

A staunch political advocate, Nucatola railed against the “right-wing” Bush administration. What’s more, she so enjoyed her work in the abortion industry that she touted a T-shirt celebrating a drug used in the practice.

Nucatola is currently employed at Sexual Health Innovations, founded by former Obama White House staffer Jessica Ladd. Senior Obama administration officials sit on the board of the abortion activist group, including Praveen Basaviah of the President’s Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS and Kyle Bernstein of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The IRS-approved 501(c)3 tech nonprofit is a major Obama administration contractor.