PP ties

[MikeK]

Do we have evidence that there is profit off the sale of these children's remains? It isn't uncommon for there to be cash transactions that accompany transfers of deceased humans or their parts. The illegal part would be if aborted children or their parts were sold for profit. It is possible that they were, but I don't know that at this time. I agree that there should not be financial incentive, beyond salaries, for those who perform abortions nor should women be payed to procure abortions.

 

[CGL1023]

Do we have evidence that there is profit off the sale of these children's remains? It isn't uncommon for there to be cash transactions that accompany transfers of deceased humans or their parts. The illegal part would be if aborted children or their parts were sold for profit. It is possible that they were, but I don't know that at this time. I agree that there should not be financial incentive, beyond salaries, for those who perform abortions nor should women be payed to procure abortions.

In the little I have read, it is clear that the abortion doctor chooses how to terminate the fetus so that key/important parts of the fetus are undamaged for later use. Talk about pre-meditation!

I don't know the details of the money exchanged but one of the PP videos suggest the amounts can be huge.

 

[WarriorAngel]

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/why-mainstream-media-protect-planned-parenthood?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed: CrisisMagazine (Crisis Magazine)

Conservatives and pro-life activists have bemoaned the mainstream media’s lack of coverage of the ongoing video exposé of Planned Parenthood’s efforts to harvest the body parts of aborted fetuses for money. An examination of the organization’s surprisingly close ties to major media corporations can help explain why leading disseminators of the news in the U.S. have shown so little interest in the controversy.

Some media outlets were so brazen in their support for Planned Parenthood that they were directly listed as donors on the sites of local affiliates. Before PP’s website was “down for maintenance” shortly after the group controversially claimed it was hacked by “extremists,” the local Washington, D.C. affiliate listed Gannett, the owners of USA Today and several other major newspapers, including the Detroit Free Press and theIndianapolis Star, and the Washington Post Co., former owners of the Washington Post for decades until Amazon.com owner Jeff Bezos bought the newspaper in 2013, as financial supporters.

But of course...

 

[WarriorAngel]

Do we have evidence that there is profit off the sale of these children's remains? It isn't uncommon for there to be cash transactions that accompany transfers of deceased humans or their parts. The illegal part would be if aborted children or their parts were sold for profit. It is possible that they were, but I don't know that at this time. I agree that there should not be financial incentive, beyond salaries, for those who perform abortions nor should women be payed to procure abortions.

I read recently that $30 - $100 per organ is actually outrageous since they deliver the organs themselves.

Darn i wish i knew where i read that - but they dont use mailing systems... basically ice it and take it.
So yes it is profit.

 

[MikeK]

Does it cost anything to harvest organs? Is preparing them for storage and protecting them from whatever bacteria and whatnot might preclude their use for science free? Is delivering them a zero cost proposition? I haven't paid much attention, but please tell me that $30-$100 per organ sold (and most are not sold) is not what this scandal is about.

 

[PapaZoom]

So, your suggestion is that the people of the media should NOT donate to the charities of their cholce?

your question seems to miss the point

 

[WarriorAngel]

Does it cost anything to harvest organs? Is preparing them for storage and protecting them from whatever bacteria and whatnot might preclude their use for science free? Is delivering them a zero cost proposition? I haven't paid much attention, but please tell me that $30-$100 per organ sold (and most are not sold) is not what this scandal is about.

Selling organs - and procuring abortions that is criminal and painful to the child - so they can profit.

In order to have such organs - the child would have to be large enough, no?

So my question is - what age are the babies being killed to gain such organs?

Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted unborn children and admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts.

NOW - it has been documented previously that adult stem cells do in fact help obtain cures and changes for people.
Yet despite the many problems with using embryonic cells that are in a constant rate of mitosis - which is the cells dividing themselves - without success or hope for curing someone [due to the growing that continues - the studies have shown growths in people using them.
Moreover; their tests continue to fail - spending millions on equipment and organs - with no real results.
Trying to grow organs - trying to understand them at the beginning of the cycle?
Now we all know - they've been on this for eons - without success.

So the ethical - and moral - question remains - why use embryonic cells when adult cells have already been successful?

See, the 'purchasing' of organs - no matter how much ppl claim isnt a sale [those lovely legal loopholes of naming something shipping and handling costs] - is still an evil as seen by the church and really - of no value in science itself.

Researchers say fetal tissue is a uniquely rich source of the stem cells that give rise to tissues and organs, and that studying how they develop can provide clues about how to grow replacements for parts of the body that have failed.

How many years has it been, now?
Michael J Fox brought it up - many years ago - and previous to that - they were studying baby cells.
I do recall Bush defunding that program and allowing them to only use the tissues they had already gotten in the 90's.
Obama opened it back up - and in this time - research is still unable to find a way to use them.. and by God's will - never shall.

 

[PapaZoom]

LifeNews.com @LifeNewsHQ

Planned Parenthood Likely Keeping Some Aborted Babies Alive “Until Their Hearts are Cut Out” bit.ly/1NhCXLf
pic.twitter.com/tHU19UUnb9

 

[MoonlessNight]

So, your suggestion is that the people of the media should NOT donate to the charities of their cholce?

The point is that the coverage from most news outlets suggests that they are in the tank for Planned Parenthood, and the fact that they donate to them is further evidence that they are not neutral parties interested in reporting on this organization in an even handed-manner.

It is the same as if a reporter or organization refrained from reporting on scandals involving a certain political candidate, and it was later found out that they were large donors to the campaign of that candidate. Don't think that that's a problem? The Society of Professional Journalists does:

Skeptics of journalistic objectivity are quick to point out that some publishers and owners of news media outlets may not follow the rules they lay down for their employees. A few get more deeply involved, and they may contribute to candidates. Is this ethical? It’s at best a double standard, and a questionable practice. But at the very minimum there should be public disclosure — in their own media — when media magnates get politically involved in this way.

Reporters covering politics are at the other end of this spectrum of what may be tolerated. For them, almost no political activity is OK.

or even more explicitly here:

Journalists often wonder whether they are allowed to become involved with any political activities or movements. The Society’s Ethics Committee offers some suggestions in a position paper, but discourages any involvement. “Don’t get involved,” the Committee writes. “Don’t contribute money, don’t work in a campaign, don’t lobby, and especially, don’t run for office yourself.”

but lest you think it's just about political candidates, look at this

If a reporter donates to a politician running for office (say, the mayor) he shouldn't also cover the election -- that includes not only the mayor but also her opponents. Be forewarned: If you donate money to a politically active organization (Planned Parenthood or the National Rifle Association) your objectivity may be called into question if you write about issues of interest to these organizations.

So yeah, it's a problem.

 

[mark46]

The point is that the coverage from most news outlets suggests that they are in the tank for Planned Parenthood, and the fact that they donate to them is further evidence that they are not neutral parties interested in reporting on this organization in an even handed-manner.

It is the same as if a reporter or organization refrained from reporting on scandals involving a certain political candidate, and it was later found out that they were large donors to the campaign of that candidate. Don't think that that's a problem? The Society of Professional Journalists does:



or even more explicitly here:



but lest you think it's just about political candidates, look at this



So yeah, it's a problem.

I agree that the media is not neutral with regard to Planned Parenthood. I agree that, in general, the media is not neutral when they "report" the news. This has been the case for many decades. There is nothing illegal about a biased press.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I agree that the media is not neutral with regard to Planned Parenthood. I agree that, in general, the media is not neutral when they "report" the news. This has been the case for many decades. There is nothing illegal about a biased press.

When did I ever say that it was illegal behavior?

And why when ever Planned Parenthood is discussed do we have so many defenses of them and their backers along these lines?

When you hear about a corporation which is paying its workers minimum wage and giving them minimal benefits, despite their large profits, do you respond with: "well they aren't doing anything illegal"?

 

[frenchdefense]

I think the fear people have about these remains is that they are profitable which certainly does not give people that profit off these remains any incentive to encourage anything else but abortion. It makes the industry even more profitable than it already is.

All this might make sense if the remains were profitable

Which they're not

So, your point is moot

Nobody's make any off any of this.

 

[Michie]

Abortion is very profitable in itself from everything I read. How do you know nobody is making money? Especially when they are using the bodies of the aborted babies now? Where is your proof? I mean an unbiased source. No huffpo pro-choice stuff.

All this might make sense if the remains were profitable

Which they're not

So, your point is moot

Nobody's make any off any of this.

 

[frenchdefense]

Abortion is very profitable.

I don't think they are. Honestly, I don't. Do you have t documentation otherwise ?

How do you know nobody is making money? I mean an unbiased source. No huffpo stuff.

Well, common sense.

All this tissue (we're not talking about "organs" here, I mean, seriously, have you seen the size of a 10 -15 week old fetus ? ) is going to do research.

Researchers typically work together to get samples and tissues there isn't really a market for it where people are buying it off the shelf.

Second, again we're talking about tissue, not organs, organ from a fetus are useless, what they are really looking of is stem cells and such. The number quoted are 30-100 dollars for these tissues.

30 to 100 dollar is about what I would think it would cost to handle and ship said tissues.

And no matter how you think about it it's certainly not big money. Especially since not all women give permission for the tissue to be used in research.

So, I just don't see how anyone is making any money off any of this.

It's all legal, it's all above board and it's all evidently common knowledge because a con man from some shady organisation got a Planned Parenthood doctor to talk about it openly in a over lunch.

And, then there's the federal government investigation which found no wrong doing.

So, if one which to drop the breathless excitement over this and look at it dispassionately I think the one would come the conclusion that most of this is, in fact, a lot of people jumping to a lot of unsupported conclusions.

 

[pdudgeon]

All this might make sense if the remains were profitable

Which they're not

So, your point is moot

Nobody's make any off any of this.

if the remains weren't profitable there would be no story, because PP wouldn't be selling them.

 

[frenchdefense]

if the remains weren't profitable there would be no story, because PP wouldn't be selling them.

They're isn't and they aren't.

 

[pdudgeon]

I don't think they are. Honestly, I don't. Do you have t documentation otherwise ?



Well, common sense.

All this tissue (we're not talking about "organs" here, I mean, seriously, have you seen the size of a 10 -15 week old fetus ? ) is going to do research.

Researchers typically work together to get samples and tissues there isn't really a market for it where people are buying it off the shelf.

Second, again we're talking about tissue, not organs, organ from a fetus are useless, what they are really looking of is stem cells and such. The number quoted are 30-100 dollars for these tissues.

30 to 100 dollar is about what I would think it would cost to handle and ship said tissues.

And no matter how you think about it it's certainly not big money. Especially since not all women give permission for the tissue to be used in research.

So, I just don't see how anyone is making any money off any of this.

It's all legal, it's all above board and it's all evidently common knowledge because a con man from some shady organisation got a Planned Parenthood doctor to talk about it openly in a over lunch.

And, then there's the federal government investigation which found no wrong doing.

So, if one which to drop the breathless excitement over this and look at it dispassionately I think the one would come the conclusion that most of this is, in fact, a lot of people jumping to a lot of unsupported conclusions.

we're not talking about tissue. we're talking about living human beings.

so let me put it this way....if they are doing this to babies now, who is next in line to be exploited in this way?

Perhaps you might want to talk to the people who live in Canada. Or California.
In both places legislation is being prepared for legalized suicide assistance of people who are terminally ill.
That means that somewhere behind the scene someone is waiting to harvest those body parts.
the medical procedures will be the same, the forms will be the same, the marketing will be the same,
and you can bet that someone will be getting paid to do these things.
and that someone else is being paid by those companies to lobby the legislators, who will make these decisions
which will open up the market for more organ harvesting and exploitation..

In short, people are now being viewed not as human beings, but as a marketable commodity of parts waiting to be harvested.

 

[frenchdefense]

we're not talking about tissue. we're talking about living human beings.

so let me put it this way....if they are doing this to babies now, who is next in line to be exploited in this way?

Perhaps you might want to talk to the people who live in Canada. Or California.
In both places legislation is being prepared for legalized suicide assistance of people who are terminally ill.
That means that somewhere behind the scene someone is waiting to harvest those body parts.
the medical procedures will be the same, the forms will be the same, the marketing will be the same,
and you can bet that someone will be getting paid to do these things.
and that someone else is being paid by those companies to lobby the legislators, who will make these decisions
which will open up the market for more organ harvesting and exploitation..

In short, people are now being viewed not as human beings, but as a marketable commodity of parts waiting to be harvested.

A
So you don't have and evidendence then ?

 

[Michie]

You were asked first. Where is the evidence that isn't from an unbiased source? You are positive it isn't profitable on any level. Besides your own personal opinion where is the proof that it isn't?

A
So you don't have and evidendence then ?

 

[Michie]

dp