Planned Parenthood Sells Dead Baby Parts

a reply to: reldra

It generates revenue for someone or it would not be facilitated at all. That's Capitalism.

a reply to: reldra
maybe the full video should be posted on every page, just so people don't see the edited 7 minute one and short circuit so badly

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: grimpachi

My theory is it has to do with same-sex marriage becoming legal. The conservative /religious/right wingers are losing more control, and are apoplectic about it, so they are struggling to find some control over something.

Or since gays have equal rights, perhaps it's time to give the unborn equal rights as well.

Someone is going to have to give up something somewhere though, right? I'm past the point of having children now, but I would have had no problem applying for the right to procreate. My husband and I had a good income, a lovely home, no criminal record, no previous unwanted pregnancies, and no known terrible genetic disease to pass on - we would have been approved no problem. If the government makes it harder to have kids, believe me, there won't be any unwanted pregnancies. The unborn will have more rights than anyone else.

originally posted by: chuck258

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

No.

I said that I couldn't find this news on anything other than conservative news sites.

I'm trying to find a mainstream news source for this and I don't see one.

If you can find me one that would be great.

You're problem is trusting that a Liberal site would have the journalistic integrity to post something they support in a negative light. How short sighted and naive of you. Stop trying to derail the thread.

I don;t see it on Fox news. They probably want to stay from a doctored video produced by people who have done this in the past. Fox news is conservative, no?

a reply to: kosmicjack
do a search and well find out just how many companies are supposedly using fetal remains to develope their products.
vaccines, food, cosmetics, and on and on...
sorry, planned parenthood isn't making the profit and to suggest that they are to blame because they are producing the waste product is like blaming the oil and chemical companies for producing their waste products when you find out just how much of the crap is in you margarine!

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Murder is murder.

But dealing in the body parts of those who have died naturally is an ethical dilemma because it may actually save a life.

Nonetheless, I find it a repugnant act and would assume that there are laws in the United States that prevent such unethical behavior.

Is this being or has it been prosecuted?

a reply to: Aazadan

Do you deny that at 20+ weeks the fetus
feels pain? Is it not cruel to dismember live?
Is it not cruel to suck out the brains alive?

My biggest objection to abortion is after
24 weeks. Once a baby can survive outside
the womb it is a person. Not a weed to be
destroyed.

A weed doesn't have a fully formed nervous system.

A 20+ week fetus is a "weed" that
feels pain exactly the same way you do.

At what point is a child no longer a "weed"?

Up until what age do you think a child is so
unaware and therefore a weed in your sight
that the parents have the right to kill it if they
don't want it.

Obama says full term or 40 weeks a baby is still a "weed"
and can be killed if the parents want to.
He fought for this as a Senator in Illinois.

What about the severely mentally and physically impaired 10 year old;
or adult who was in a severe car wreck;
who is a "weed" as you put it,
confined to a bed or wheelchair, has to wear diapers
has to be fed by hand or with a tube,
with no ability to speak, or any indication of understanding.

Is it then ok to dismember the 10 year old alive
or adult car wreck victim alive
with no anesthesia?
Because the family doesn't want them?

Is it ok to take the body parts of the 10 yr old
or car wreck victim "weed"
while alive with no anesthesia
and sell them?

Is it ok to take a needle and suck out their
brains to kill them? If they are "weeds" at
10 years old or an adult car wreck victim.

Where do you draw the line with human "weeds"
what if it were you who became a weed in
a car accident?

Would it be ok to stick a needle in your brain
and suck it out without regard to any pain you might feel?

Would it be ok to dismember you alive with
no regard to any pain you might feel?

There is no difference in my mind between
a car wreck victim who becomes what you call a "weed"
and a 24 week old fetus who I call a baby.

Before 20 weeks, I can see your point,
after 20 weeks when the fetus experiences
pain I no longer see your point,
after 24 weeks when the baby can survive
outside the womb,
I see this as cruelty on par with the holocaust.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: reldra

It generates revenue for someone or it would not be facilitated at all. That's Capitalism.

In the case of Planned Parenthood, they support stem cell research and the research of fetal material to lead to treatments and cures for the living. There are labs they donate to who are selling the legally allowed parts at a profit, blood products, progenitor cells, etc. They are also donating to labs that do pure research. PP can put in their contract exactly what and what they don;t want done with the donation. If the lab says no, there are lots of other labs.

It is not PP making a profit from this. That is the thrust of the OP.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: grimpachi

My theory is it has to do with same-sex marriage becoming legal. The conservative /religious/right wingers are losing more control, and are apoplectic about it, so they are struggling to find some control over something.

Or since gays have equal rights, perhaps it's time to give the unborn equal rights as well.

Someone is going to have to give up something somewhere though, right? I'm past the point of having children now, but I would have had no problem applying for the right to procreate. My husband and I had a good income, a lovely home, no criminal record, no previous unwanted pregnancies, and no known terrible genetic disease to pass on - we would have been approved no problem. If the government makes it harder to have kids, believe me, there won't be any unwanted pregnancies. The unborn will have more rights than anyone else.

What rights did you lose when gays could marry?
What rights did you lose when slavery ended?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Murder is murder.

But dealing in the body parts of those who have died naturally is an ethical dilemma because it may actually save a life.

Nonetheless, I find it a repugnant act and would assume that there are laws in the United States that prevent such unethical behavior.

Is this being or has it been prosecuted?

PP is acting within federal law guidelines. It was investigated and PP was found to be acting within the law. The same law hospitals and other medical facilities follow in regard to these donations.

I posted the law that governs this. many times in this thread and the relevant parts. It is designed to stop organ trafficking...meaning selling organs to the highest bidder without oversight to the tune of 50K+. These are donations where costs are covered, in accordance with federal law. The fees are about $30-$100.

People shouldn't wait 24 weeks, but what about the health of the mother?

The health of the mother is the reason given for a abortion at 38 weeks.

So, in the interest of the mother's health, the fetus is intentionally delivered feet first, a breech birth. A breech delivery is looked at as a bad thing when an abortion is not the end goal. Why deliver the fetus feet first? Because if the fetus were to be delivered head first, it could possibly take a breath before it is 'terminated' with a pair of scissors cutting through the spinal cord. If it takes a breath it suddenly becomes a human being.
Never mind that it has a heart beating in its chest.
^^This is called choice^^
Fluffy kittens, aren't they cute?

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Murder is murder.

But dealing in the body parts of those who have died naturally is an ethical dilemma because it may actually save a life.

Nonetheless, I find it a repugnant act and would assume that there are laws in the United States that prevent such unethical behavior.

Is this being or has it been prosecuted?

PP is acting within federal law guidelines. It was investigated and PP was found to be acting within the law. The same law hospitals and other medical facilities follow in regard to these donations.

I posted the law that governs this. many times in this thread and the relevant parts. It is designed to stop organ trafficking...meaning selling organs to the highest bidder without oversight to the tune of 50K+. These are donations where costs are covered, in accordance with federal law. The fees are about $30-$100.

Thank you.

I understand the ethical issues but I still have an unreasoned horrified reaction that this kind of thing occurs.

a reply to: beezzer

What rights did you lose when gays could marry?
none, except the right not to listen to a bunch of conservative whining, which really I didn't lose because I could always turn it off...
What rights did you lose when slavery ended?
not sure one could argue that at least the slave owners had to invest some their money when they bought the slaves and well, if they wanted to keep them healthy and productive they had to invest in making sure that they at least were fed and housed well enough to keep them that way.

what rights might be lost when abortion ended??

The story of “Beatriz,” the 22-year-old woman caught in the firestorm of the abortion conflict in El Salvador, no longer appears on the front pages of the country’s newspapers nor on TV nightly news. Beatriz, however, struggles daily with poor health resulting from denial of abortion care, while trying to build a life for herself and her 20-month-old son. Beatriz’s story garnered international coverage in April when she was denied an abortion by the government of El Salvador, even though her fetus was not viable and her doctors had determined continuing the pregnancy was putting her life in grave danger. In El Salvador, abortion is illegal even when the mother’s life is in danger, a policy supported by both the current government, the powerful Catholic bishops of El Salvador, and equally powerful anti-choice groups allied with ultra-conservative Catholic theology. Despite the law, in early April 2013 doctors advised Beatriz of the dire consequences of continuing her pregnancy, and she requested an abortion. Under Salvadoran law, a woman who has an abortion and anyone who assists in providing one both face prison terms of up to 50 years. Still, Beatriz persevered in pressing her case.

rhrealitycheck.org... an-society/

possibly alot!

originally posted by: butcherguy
People shouldn't wait 24 weeks, but what about the health of the mother?

The health of the mother is the reason given for a abortion at 38 weeks.

So, in the interest of the mother's health, the fetus is intentionally delivered feet first, a breech birth. A breech delivery is looked at as a bad thing when an abortion is not the end goal. Why deliver the fetus feet first? Because if the fetus were to be delivered head first, it could possibly take a breath before it is 'terminated' with a pair of scissors cutting through the spinal cord. If it takes a breath it suddenly becomes a human being.
Never mind that it has a heart beating in its chest.
^^This is called choice^^
Fluffy kittens, aren't they cute?

And, so? The mother living has always been a justified reason for late term abortions, which are rare.

"Late-term abortions are very rare. About one percent of all abortions performed in the United States occur after 21 weeks. There are different definitions of what constitutes a “late term abortion,” but most definitions refer to abortions at or after 24 weeks or in the third trimester." source

a reply to: chr0naut

I understand the ethical issues but I still have an unreasoned horrified reaction that this kind of thing occurs.

I call that a normal reaction.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Murder is murder.

But dealing in the body parts of those who have died naturally is an ethical dilemma because it may actually save a life.

Nonetheless, I find it a repugnant act and would assume that there are laws in the United States that prevent such unethical behavior.

Is this being or has it been prosecuted?

PP is acting within federal law guidelines. It was investigated and PP was found to be acting within the law. The same law hospitals and other medical facilities follow in regard to these donations.

I posted the law that governs this. many times in this thread and the relevant parts. It is designed to stop organ trafficking...meaning selling organs to the highest bidder without oversight to the tune of 50K+. These are donations where costs are covered, in accordance with federal law. The fees are about $30-$100.

Thank you.

I understand the ethical issues but I still have an unreasoned horrified reaction that this kind of thing occurs.

What kind of thing? The donation of the dead to science?

a reply to: reldra

Cannibalism is rare too.
Maybe eating babies should be okay?
Just one step past chopping their heads off.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: reldra
maybe the full video should be posted on every page, just so people don't see the edited 7 minute one and short circuit so badly

I can find it again.


This is a meeting between a PP employee and what she thought was an above board research facility. This type of meeting would occur every time a new lab calls PP to enter into a relationship. She may seem uncaring of the issue, but she has to do this a lot. It is to establish the operating procedures of both sides, what one side has, what one side wants.

She notes, that some find this issue sensitive, but none of this is against the law. The figures noted are fees for removing the part, keeping it viable, administrative costs involved in this program, matching samples to labs. A hospital administrator, who had this job, would have the same conversation.

originally posted by: reldra

Yes I did. And didn't you see in the last 300 posts sources showing it is not true? Showing that they don't sell body parts? That they operate within federal law? That the viseo was edited from 2 hours and 42 minutes to 7 minutes to make it look like something it is not. I did most of the research finding it. I do have the gall.

There is over 300 posts. In there, you will find the answer.

i really doubt it. First of all, you don't even know why the video was edited to make it shorter... i guess it didn't occur to you that the conversation could have drifted to something else entirely for a while... Guess that never happens according to you...

Second of all, just because many in the pro-choice crowd don't want to believe this is happening doesn't make it so...

The woman CLEARLY talks about abortion procedures, how to make sure that "body parts" and organs are left intact during the procedure/murder, and other vile comments...

And of course there would be those among the "pro-choice" crowd in power who would claim these clinics are operating under the law despite evidence of the contrary.

It is a law that no body parts can be sold in this country... The selling and buying of body parts from aborted fetuses is punishable by 15 years of jail and a fine of $500,000 which imo is very low in both the jail sentence and the fine...

This woman talks about puting a price to the body parts of human fetuses that have been aborted... She talks about how "a lot of people want intact body parts, and organs from aborted human fetuses"... She even gave a number... The interviewer even asked again to make certain of what she said, and then the video is edited to show the part where she talks about it again...

This was an undercover recording... The woman didn't know she was being recorded so she could have been changing topics now and then...

You seem to think that she knew she was being filmed so she would stay within the topic the whole time. That's not so.

I have had business conversations before, thankfully nothing of this vile nature, and a business conversation will shift often time to other topics for different reasons.

This wasn't a scripted interview... So, of course the video would have to be edited.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: grimpachi

My theory is it has to do with same-sex marriage becoming legal. The conservative /religious/right wingers are losing more control, and are apoplectic about it, so they are struggling to find some control over something.

Or since gays have equal rights, perhaps it's time to give the unborn equal rights as well.

Someone is going to have to give up something somewhere though, right? I'm past the point of having children now, but I would have had no problem applying for the right to procreate. My husband and I had a good income, a lovely home, no criminal record, no previous unwanted pregnancies, and no known terrible genetic disease to pass on - we would have been approved no problem. If the government makes it harder to have kids, believe me, there won't be any unwanted pregnancies. The unborn will have more rights than anyone else.

What rights did you lose when gays could marry?
What rights did you lose when slavery ended?

Apples, bananas. Gays weren't in my body. I didn't have sex to create slavery.

You cannot stop abortion altogether without controlling how abortion comes about. Abortion comes about because of unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancies. It's been happening since the beginning of mankind. You have to control the unprotected sex to control the unwanted pregnancies. You have to force protected sex. It's the only way to completely stop all abortion (well, except for the ones that happen because the woman's life becomes endangered during the pregnancy). By forcing protected sex, you have to give up some of your personal freedom.