Planned Parenthood Sells Dead Baby Parts

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: grandmakdw


As I have previously stated *Sensationalism*

Hand picked pictures for the most impact and sympathetic

responses?


That is at 24 weeks when a foetus is viable, and not when most

terminations are carried out at between 12 / 16 weeks.


There was method in showing that picture of and older foetus....

much prettier than the pictures of earlier foetus which hardly

look human at all in most instances.... therefor more likely to

elicit sympathy for the cause of pro lifers

I just went to google and clicked on images after inputting 20 week fetus sonogram. Not too much cherry picking there.

Feel free to google 20 week fetus sonogram and pick a few ugly ones and post them yourself to dehumanize
the dismemberment of live infants.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Now show us some photos of the horribly disfigured fetuses that would go through life physically deformed if not inconstant agony ...

oh wait .... You can't because a) that is against T&C and b) that wouldn't serve the agenda of implying that is what happens in 98.5% of abortions rather than 1.5 most of which are performed to safe the mothers life ... Which most of you have said you're in favor of ...

Ya know, forget it.

a reply to: windword

[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…

www.lifenews.com...

They are…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ’spawning… human beings who never should have been born. Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease…Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.

Eugenics is : the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems. The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.

Sanger once said, “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race” and even said, “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

www.quotesby.net...

www.lifenews.com...

Oh yes Maragret Sanger was a real humanitarian. And people are proud of this wretched creature. The whole Organization is rotten to the core.

a reply to: Lostinthedarkness

Winston Churchill

"The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the Feeble-Minded and Insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate. I am convinced that the multiplication of the Feeble-Minded, which is proceeding now at an artificial rate, unchecked by any of the old restraints of nature, and actually fostered by civilised conditions, is a terrible danger to the race."
He called sterilization a "simple surgical operation so the inferior could be permitted freely in the world without causing much inconvenience to others."

Alexander Graham Bell

Bell, one of greatest inventors in the history of this country, was intimately connected with the eugenics movement in the United States including being on the Committee on Eugenics. From 1912 until 1918 he was also the chairman of the board of scientific advisers to the Eugenics Record Office. In 1921, he was the honorary president of the Second International Congress of Eugenics which advocated sterilization laws across the country for those Bell called a "defective variety of the human race." Some of those laws were used as models for similar laws in Nazi Germany.
Bell, the inventor of the telephone, called for the "eradication of the deaf race" and was quoted as saying "People do not understand the mental condition of a person who cannot speak and who thinks in gestures. He is sometimes looked upon as a sort of monstrosity, to be stared at and avoided….Those who believe as I do, that the production of a defective race of human beings would be a great calamity to the world, will examine carefully the causes that lead to the intermarriages of the deaf with the object of applying a remedy."
To prevent this, Bell suggested that deaf people be forbidden to intermarry for fear that they would have deaf children.

Teddy Roosevelt:

It is really extraordinary that our people refuse to apply to human beings such elementary knowledge as every successful farmer is obliged to apply to his own stock breeding. Any group of farmers who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum. Yet we fail to understand that such conduct is rational compared to the conduct of a nation which permits unlimited breeding from the worst stocks, physically and morally, while it encourages or connives at the cold selfishness or the twisted sentimentality as a result of which the men and women ought to marry, and if married have large families, remain celebates or have no children or only one or two.

Some day we will realize that the prime duty the inescapable duty of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type.

Helen Keller"

Our puny sentimentalism has caused us to forget that a human life is sacred only when it may be of some use to itself and to the world.”
She also called for “physicians’ juries for defective babies.” Seriously.

"It is the possibility of happiness, intelligence and power that give life its sanctity, and they are absent in the case of a poor, misshapen, paralyzed, unthinking creature,” Keller said, adding that allowing a "defective" child to die was simply a “weeding of the human garden that shows a sincere love of true life.”

H.G. Wells:

"The way of nature has always been to slay the hindmost, and there is still no other way, unless we can prevent those who would become the hindmost being born," he wrote. "It is in the sterilization of failures, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies."
And kind of a racist. "The mating of two quite healthy persons may result in disease," he wrote. "I am told it does so in the case of interbreeding of healthy white men and healthy black women about the Tanganyka region; the half-breed children are ugly, sickly, and rarely live."

George Bernard Shaw

"We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill," he wrote. "A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people's time to look after them."
He once said, "You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight, and since you won't, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself."

Source

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: grandmakdw

They can and do, if it's true that the fetus CAN feel pain, give anesthesia to the fetus during abortions, if parents who ask for it can afford it. But a law requiring it is continually being rejected.

The law requiring it is being rejected by whom?
Those who support abortion in the last trimester?
Those who would have to expend money to keep the dismemberment of a live human comfortable?

If abortion supporters don't care about the pain and the dismembering alive of human beings,
then why would they support pain management for the dismembering and brain sucking and
head smashing?

The following month, Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, presented to the Senate the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, requiring doctors to tell women seeking abortions at 20 weeks or later that their fetuses can feel pain and to offer anesthesia “administered directly to the pain-capable unborn child.” The bill did not pass, but Brownback continues to introduce it each year.
www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: windword
www.cdc.gov... NOTE not saying its a conspiaracy or anything shady is afoot but minority women(african american and hispanic) seem to have them at a higher level based on per capita population levels

Race Among women from the 39 areas for which race was reported for 2006, white women (including both Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women) accounted for the largest percentage (55.8%) of abortions; black women accounted for 36.4% and women of other racial groups for 7.8% (Table 10). Black women had higher abortion rates and ratios than white women and women of other races (Table 10). Among the 29 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1997--2006, the percentage of abortions by race changed little; abortions by women in the "other" racial category increased, but the percentage remained low (5.8%--7.7%) (Table 11). Among women from all racial groups, abortion rates and ratios generally declined during 1997--2006, but the abortion rate was higher in 2006 than in 2005; for black women, the abortion ratio was lower in 2006 than in 2005, whereas for white women and women in the "other" racial category, this measure was relatively stable during 2005--2006 (Table 11).

again dont think this is an agenda or any thing shady but figured these statistics could be relevent to the discussion and help explain possibly why the poster you replied to was coming from the angle they were


www.theatlantic.com... from the atlantic (not sure if they are left or right leaning honestly) but here is their take on the matter

In 2005, Renee Bracey Sherman, then 19, sat in the abortion clinic alone. A jumble of concerns ran through her mind. She didn’t feel ready for a baby, but still, she worried that her parents would be disappointed in her choice. More than anything, though, she didn’t want to be a statistic, another pregnant black teen. “In the moment, you never know who your allies are,” Bracey Sherman said. “You don’t want to take the chance of everyone judging you at a moment when you’re so vulnerable. There’s a very unfortunate stereotype of women of color, and black women in particular, that we are promiscuous and just have babies. You don’t want that to be you.” An African-American woman is almost five times likelier to have an abortion than a white woman, and a Latina more than twice as likely, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate of abortion among American women is currently at its lowest point since Roe v. Wade, according to a recent report by the Guttmacher Institute. About 1.1 million abortions were performed in 2011, at a rate of 16.9 abortions for every 1,000 women of childbearing age, down from a peak of 29.3 per 1,000 in 1981. Since the report’s release in February, the reason why has been the subject of much debate. Its authors and abortion-rights supporters point to the increase in contraceptive use and sexual education, while anti-abortion activists counter that the decrease is a result of abstinence-only teachings and state restrictions. Largely missing from the debate, though, is discussion of abortion’s racial disparity: Although rates among Hispanic and African-American women have decreased along with the rest of the country, they remain significantly higher than the national average.

www.huffingtonpost.com... from huffington post as well so this angle is being looked at by both sides of the political spectrum

While the debate over New York City's wildly criticized teen pregnancy prevention campaign rages on, a recent study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute may offer support to proponents of the PSA. According to the Institute's state-by-state study of abortion rates among teens, black teenagers between 15 and 19 years old have an abortion rate of 41 per 1,000 women, more than twice the national average of 18 per 1,000. In comparison, white teenagers have an abortion rate of 10 per 1,000 women, which means that African-American teenagers are having abortions at a rate that is about four times higher than that of their white counterparts. In New York, the state with the highest abortion rate in the country, the situation is even more grim, with pregnancies among black teens -- excluding miscarriages -- resulting in abortion 67 percent of the time.

Note as of yet they have not done a study on this part (why the rate is higher among african americans 5 times higher then nation average and 2 times higher for hispanics latinos) so hopefully that eventually happens and a peer reviewed study is done ,of note the above article also covers some issues we have had in this thread relating to the theory some have that planned parenthood spectifically targets black neighborhoods to set up their clinics ,this is all covered just past the break i nthe article with the large quote


and just because its the only study of its kind i could find that appeared to be peer reviwed pricetheory.uchicago.edu... its a 40ish page pdf so be forwarned but according to the author of the paper his theory is that since abortion became legal it is the main explination for why we have lower crime rates now then before roe vs wade .now there are many theories and i personally dobut its just one thing to explain all of the drop in crime rates and so i post this almost as a counter point to the above as i think it adds a bit more context to it

msgboard.snopes.com.../ubb/get_topic/f/57/t/000955/p/2.html



more directly on topic from what i have gathered PP did or used to sell the fetal tissue (parts as they have been referred to) its just that nothing they are doing was illegal and that its akin to organ transplant?

m.snopes.com... snopes is calling it undetermined for now and as i dont know of a better site to check this kind of thing out i figured id let ats get to the bottom of it


gawker.com... gawker says this on the matter

Except that, as Planned Parenthood told The Hill, its affiliates “can legally receive reimbursement from a tissue donation procedure for the ‘additional expenses related tissue donation, which can vary based on individual circumstance,’ but it does not go to staff members or providers.” These “additional expenses” might be the $10-30 it costs to transport the tissue being donated, which Planned Parenthood notes is “standard across the medical field.” And no, the patient donating the tissue doesn’t receive any financial reimbursement either. In reality, the donation of fetal tissue is no different than any other situation in which a patient might donate tissue to scientific research.

so not so much selling exactly,but that they do treat the fetus like its an organ donor and that this is not against any law and that they do donate "parts" for medical research etc
dont have a dog in this fight personally just figured id share a few links and interesting things i found while researching this hot button issue

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: grandmakdw


As I have previously stated *Sensationalism*

Hand picked pictures for the most impact and sympathetic

responses?


That is at 24 weeks when a foetus is viable, and not when most

terminations are carried out at between 12 / 16 weeks.


There was method in showing that picture of and older foetus....

much prettier than the pictures of earlier foetus which hardly

look human at all in most instances.... therefor more likely to

elicit sympathy for the cause of pro lifers

I just went to google and clicked on images after inputting 20 week fetus sonogram. Not too much cherry picking there.

Feel free to google 20 week fetus sonogram and pick a few ugly ones and post them yourself to dehumanize
the dismemberment of live infants.

I did ... That's where I noticed that you had picked out the cutest one

and at 24 weeks, which is past the legal limit except for

extenuating circumstances.

Where as the younger, unformed, not so cute 'foetus pictures' were not

used by you.

Could it possibly be because you are doing your utmost to drum up some

hysteria!

a reply to: windword

You forgot to add Bill Gates, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot,Mao, Stalin. Also Bill Ayres and a few more close to the administration.

But that dont make it right!

originally posted by: windword

They can and do, if it's true that the fetus CAN feel pain, give anesthesia to the fetus during abortions, if parents who ask for it can afford it. But a law requiring it is continually being rejected.

The law requiring it is being rejected by whom?
Those who support abortion in the last trimester?
Those who would have to expend money to keep the dismemberment of a live human comfortable?

The following month, Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, presented to the Senate the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, requiring doctors to tell women seeking abortions at 20 weeks or later that their fetuses can feel pain and to offer anesthesia “administered directly to the pain-capable unborn child.” The bill did not pass, but Brownback continues to introduce it each year.
www.nytimes.com...

Ah, I see.

It won't pass because a Republican, a conservative,
tries to get the bill passed every year.
No surprise.

a reply to: windword

Which chains of abortion clinics were founded by the people cited in your post?

a reply to: links234

this claims to be the unedited video(i have no clue honestly) but this one is over 2 hours long

www.youtube.com... so for what its worth here it is i have yet to watch it so i dont have an opinion either way just figured showing the unedited video could help make things make sense in context (as at least with full video in context we can form our own opinions etc and not have to worry about things being edited to look one way or the other) if some one finds a better video or if this one is not the correct one feel free to post what people view is the more accurate one and disregard this post if this is another ediited version

a reply to: stosh64

ACORN did a lot of great work. That video was also a hoax. But not the only example of Republican Congresspersons leading us on a wild goose chase on our own dime.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: grandmakdw


As I have previously stated *Sensationalism*

Hand picked pictures for the most impact and sympathetic

responses?


That is at 24 weeks when a foetus is viable, and not when most

terminations are carried out at between 12 / 16 weeks.


There was method in showing that picture of and older foetus....

much prettier than the pictures of earlier foetus which hardly

look human at all in most instances.... therefor more likely to

elicit sympathy for the cause of pro lifers

I just went to google and clicked on images after inputting 20 week fetus sonogram. Not too much cherry picking there.

Feel free to google 20 week fetus sonogram and pick a few ugly ones and post them yourself to dehumanize
the dismemberment of live infants.

I did ... That's where I noticed that you had picked out the cutest one

and at 24 weeks, which is past the legal limit except for

extenuating circumstances.

Where as the younger, unformed, not so cute 'foetus pictures' were not

used by you.

Could it possibly be because you are doing your utmost to drum up some

hysteria!

It is so rare that it happens over 10,000 times a year to babies exactly the developmental age seen in the pictures.
(see my previous post for a link)

Over 10,000 times a year a 20+ week old fetus
like the ones in the pictures are
dismembered alive,
or has it's brain sucked out,
or has it's head smashed.

But as Krazyshot was so happy to point out
these tiny humans
have no rights
and can be dismembered alive
and with a great deal of pain
and have their body parts sold.

This makes people like you quite satisfied
that the mother's rights are being upheld,
while the baby who is to small to scream
is cut apart alive and feeling everything
eventually dies from having its heart, lungs, liver
cut out and sold.

a reply to: butcherguy

They were funded and supported by those people and many more.

Sanger didn't invent eugenics. It was a modern intellectual trend of its day. Every generation has something to be ashamed of. But, more good came from Sanger's birth control clinics than from a lot of other American projects, like giving black people syphilis, or secretly sterilizing unwed mothers after giving birth, stealing their babies and telling them they died.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: butcherguy

They were funded and supported by those people and many more.

Sanger didn't invent eugenics. It was a modern intellectual trend of its day. Every generation has something to be ashamed of. But, more good came from Sanger's birth control clinics than from a lot of other American projects, like giving black people syphilis, or secretly sterilizing unwed mothers after giving birth, stealing their babies and telling them they died.

Please allow me to accurately paraphrase your reply.

'None of them founded a chain of abortion clinics'.

Margaret Sanger did.

a reply to: butcherguy

Nonsense. Stanger didn't establish abortion clinics! She established birth control clinics. Don't worry, during Stanger's day, women were still getting the back alley abortions that you think they deserved!

originally posted by: beezzer

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.

Mainstream news won't do stories like this because they are biased and follow an agenda.

EXACTLY!!

Crying for another news source, when that other source won't report it is just silly.

I'm anti abortion.

I was born sterile. I cannot father a child. I have a pretty unique personal view of abortion, because I simply cannot fathom how someone could just destroy what someone like me is denied. It literally sickens me.

I don't view this through religious eyes, because I am not very religious. I view it with my heart, and it tells me it's just wrong.

BUT, I am also a believer in freedom. So if the law says it's legal to kill a child in the womb, then it is a woman's right to choose that. However, I would, and have had major words with female friends of mine who have had abortions, and I lost a girlfriend over me being against it.

I think that the father should have a say. Yes, it's a woman's body, but that is part of another person growing inside her. There has to be a way to work within that.

As far as selling the organs go, I think it's deplorable, and should be made 100% illegal. Stem cells from the cord, that's different. But to actually harvest the organs......ugh....

originally posted by: grandmakdw



Close to 4 times as many black babies are aborted each year than any other racial group in America.

Seeing as its freedom of choice for any woman to seek a termination

and if 4 times as many black babies are aborted, it seems obvious 4 times as

many black women must be being careless or irresponsible with contraception!


I don't think there's any conspiracy there

a reply to: Lostinthedarkness

Again I ask- how did PP force these black women to take contraception? How did they force them to have unwanted pregnancies and abortions? And how come all the black people didn't just die out and disappear with all the evil things PP was doing to them?

And how come I keep hearing (from the very people who seem so concerned about these poor black people being forced to have abortions) that these lazy black women are having babies one right after the other so they can milk the welfare system?

Talk about cognitive dissonance.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: grandmakdw



Close to 4 times as many black babies are aborted each year than any other racial group in America.

Seeing as its freedom of choice for any woman to seek a termination

and if 4 times as many black babies are aborted, it seems obvious 4 times as

many black women must be being careless or irresponsible with contraception!


I don't think there's any conspiracy there

It just conveniently happens to support
the goal of Sanger
to stop as many black people as possible
from being born.
She has succeeded beyond her
wildest dreams.
Recent estimates are Sanger and PP
have prevented over 16 Million
black people from being born.

www.blackgenocide.org...

So the goal of Planned Parenthood when started
by Sanger was to make certain that as few
black children were born as possible.
She succeeded and PP carries on assisting
in the founding mission of PP.