It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

PP - injecting minced baby brains into mice, growing fetuses outside wombs, etc.

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

i believe the woman would have much more say over the body of their dead child/ their fetus/part of their body.
it is irrelevent how the video was obtained (2 party recording state?... nice try.) we both know they don't want this being common knowledge. so take a page from your mentors book...... "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.?

i would like to hear your reasoning behind why PP has more right to a womans dead childs body/a womans fetus/ sac of cells made by her body that happened to fall out than she does herself......HOWEVER YOU WANT TO SPIN IT, you can't talk about that (insert name here) without acknowledging who created it, and who it belongs to.

now you "law lovers" (hypocrites) know it's against the "law" to desecrate a corpse. the insanity of a malicious, malignant government knows no bounds.

it is good to know where you stand.




posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

We were "designed" to procreate with over half of the "little humans" that are created being spontaneously aborted before they even have a chance??? What kind of monster was the "designer"? Couldn't a more efficient system be "designed" that didn't kill millions of "babies" (aka blastocysts) per year?

The reason the actual fact of the number of spontaneous abortions that occur naturally speaks to this point is that the anti-choice faction is so desperately trying to find any lie that will capture the emotions of Americans (like "personhood begins at conception" or "abortion is murdering babies" that is so vile in it's deceit and dishonesty that these people should be ashamed to call themselves Christians (which, like it or not, is the motivation behind all this because it certainly isn't science).

The actual contribution of a man to a pregnancy is exactly 1 spermatozoon approximately 50 microns long. That's a scientific fact. Yet somehow some men feel (as did the poster I was actually, you know, responding to) that this "contribution" gives them the right to dictate to a woman what she will do with her body for the next nine months and with her life for the next two decades or so.

There's nothing false about either of these "narratives" despite your attempt to deflect. Both speak directly to the issues (I'll simplify it so you can't miss it this time: )

1. There is nothing magical or sacred and least of all HUMAN about a fertilized egg/embryo and for early development of the fetus. These are comprised and made from the woman's body and are part of it, and there is no other medical fact that is relevant or factual.

2. Men cannot become pregnant (although thanks for the unnecessary biology lesson; what was it you said about inserting false narratives???) and yet they think that a microscopic "donation" during sexual intercourse somehow gives them the right to dominate and control a woman's body.



edit on 6Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:57:10 -050015p062015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: fixitwcw

Don't be absurd, the women getting abortions have to sign waivers and forms that allow PP to do this. The expectant mothers knew FULL well what PP could do with the aborted tissue. They agreed to it!
edit on 12-8-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: fixitwcw
a reply to: Gryphon66

i believe the woman would have much more say over the body of their dead child/ their fetus/part of their body.
it is irrelevent how the video was obtained (2 party recording state?... nice try.) we both know they don't want this being common knowledge. so take a page from your mentors book...... "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.?

i would like to hear your reasoning behind why PP has more right to a womans dead childs body/a womans fetus/ sac of cells made by her body that happened to fall out than she does herself......HOWEVER YOU WANT TO SPIN IT, you can't talk about that (insert name here) without acknowledging who created it, and who it belongs to.

now you "law lovers" (hypocrites) know it's against the "law" to desecrate a corpse. the insanity of a malicious, malignant government knows no bounds.

it is good to know where you stand.


The woman does have "say" over what happens to their fetuses: they donate them for medical research.

Next?

ETA: Just out of curiosity, you're not a "law lover" ... what are you, an anarchist? These "laws" that you apparently don't "love" are what protects both women and real actual small humans from harm. I'm sure you want to be able to do what you want when you want or perhaps whenever the "spirit" moves you, right?

Yeah, that's not what we call civilized society.
edit on 6Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:56:26 -050015p062015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

You eat aborted babies?

Are you sure you want to post that fact in a public forum?

I'll bet you feel that it's "okay" to murder some "babies" and not others, right? As long as you agree with the "murder"?

Yep, sounds like every totalitarian regime I've ever heard of.




posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I am anti-gun. I hate the things. Can't stand them. I have never held one, and I don't intend to. Ever.

HOWEVER, I believe sane, law-abiding people who want guns should be able to have them. I believe it's their right.

I am anti-abortion. I hate the idea. I can't imagine myself ever having an abortion, for any reason.

HOWEVER, I believe women should be able to choose what happens with their own bodies. I believe it's their right.


WHAT!?! you mean you have original ideas that don't match up with the way zealots want to define you so that you fit their fascist agendas better?

What's wrong with you woman? Why should you be "speaking" at all? Don't you realize that the Designer made you inferior to men and that you should only have a second or third or fourth class place in the world and should be making babies rather than talking?

(Blatant and ludicrous sarcasm was implied in this post to make the point.)



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 07:17 AM
link   
So do you think that if you sink planned parenthood that these research companies will not find other sources for their fetal tissue and stop the experiments?
Do you think that it will end abortions?
Matter of fact, why bring PP into this discussion at all, if what you are finding offensive is that the tissue is being used for research? Shouldn't your anger be directed at the companies that are obtaining the tissues from PP since I am pretty sure they are doing the slicing and dicing? I mean if you don't life the idea of the research being done, shouldn't you be griping at congress to change the laws and prohibit the research, or at least prohibit the procurement of addiction stem cells to be cultivated? I mean if that is what you are truly finding offensive than that would be the easiest route to take, reverse the laws and make the procurement of the fetal tissue illegal...
but, oh ya, it's become big business and well, big business brings big profits, which leads to big donations to big politicians on both sides of the fence, to ensure that the big business will always find themselves in an environment that enables them to thrive, which ensure bigger donations to the politicians in the future.
and of course the right likes to portray themselves as the best friend of the business community, so they can't be seen actually attacking such a profitable business now can they..
so oh, ya, it's okay to attack this topic, to discuss it and demonize it all you want, as long as you keep the big businesses out of it and attack the small charity organizations who are helping the least powerful in our society!

You'll never see a world that doesn't have abortions. make them illegal and they will be done illegally. it seems to be an historical fact, and well, just look toward southern tx if you want a more realistic example. They have made it so difficult to obtain an abortion there that a new drug trade has entered the picture, this time a drug that was developed in I believe it was brazil for something or other, but well the women there discovered that it was a very effective method for abortion, it wasn't discovered by the officials in brazil until they noticed an unexplainable significant decrease in the admissions of women suffering from the many after effects of the illegal abortions that were being performed.
fact is women will find a way to abort the babies when they feel the need to.
and well another fact is that there will always be a true NEED for abortions.
Planned parenthood is probably one of the most investigated groups out there. I would love to see a chart that shows their distribution of funds that includes their legal expenditures on it! It's being regulated. Kill planned parenthood and I believe there will be far less oversight and well, kill legal abortions or make them impossible to obtain and you will remove all that oversight along with all those regulations and you will indeed have a black market for fetal tissues.

and well black markets tend to become very big businesses with high profit margins!



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I know, I know - as a woman, I have no right using this thing in my head called a brain. I'm a sinner for sure!



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Gryphon66

I know, I know - as a woman, I have no right using this thing in my head called a brain. I'm a sinner for sure!


Sinner or not (if you are join the club) please keep on posting the thoughts of that very talented mind. Not all men are control freaks.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
New PP vid just released.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
Your cognitive process has always fascinated me.

But not enough to engage with you.

I have tried before and found the whole process utterly pointless.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLegend

Pp doesn't sell them... they only get refunded the shipping costs. I am shooting the messenger as it is your words that are wrong.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: stosh64 the girl is so over the top emotive, pretty much destroys any credibility



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
ya know, it's interesting....
the women who has an abortion gets absolutely no compensation if she donates the tissue....
Planned Parenthood, until proven otherwise, we must assume is only compensated for the costs involved with delivering the tissue to the middle men like StemExpress...
Stem Express gets these tissues at cost, and proceeds to process them into a usable product to sell to research firms...
and I have a feeling that they do make a nice profit!!!
and well the research firms come up with cures and I am sure that they make a nice profit also!!!

why is all the heat on planned parenthood and the women???



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: TheLegend I'm sure you'd have a different response if you saw patients with dementia or Alzheimer's, maybe even your grand parents or parents that these experiments could potentially cure?



My father died of Alzeheimers and because of that we have many many friends with Alzeheimers.

The cure can be found without chopping up babies.
We don't allow cosmetic companies to use animals for testing anymore.
They have found other ways and computer simulations to test the cosmetics.

Do we really need to create chimera's (part human/part animal)
to experiment on (that is what a mouse with a human brain is - a chimera)


Is that moral enough to justify chopping up baby brains for?
To put fetal brain tissue into an animal
which increases the brain power of the mouse,
in effect creating a mouse with a human brain.
The brain that was intended to be used by a human being?

Any fetus over 16 weeks old is a human being, just look at one
in a 3D sonogram and you will see them sucking their thumbs,
laughing, shielding their eyes or ears from light or sonar.
So we take this little human, kill it, remove it's brain
and put the brain in a mouse.
How do you justify the morality of getting a cure for
anything out of creating a part human/part mouse chimera?

If you are pro-abortion after the 16 week mark,
after being made aware of this happening
then you are pro-chimera creation by scientists.

Pro-choice is pro-abortion, they are the same thing.
If you are for the right of a woman to choose, they
are choosing an abortion, so you are for the right of
a woman to choose an abortion, ie pro-abortion.

Pro-abortion after 16 week
pro-research on cut up baby parts older
than 16 weeks?
After knowing this you are by default
pro-chimera creation part human/part animal
creation for the purpose of research.

If you don't believe me after seeing the video,
how about this article:
"To conduct the experiment, the scientists created human chimeric mice — mice that were endowed with human glial cells."

Now we know they were brain cells from tiny
humans, which would have become human brains,
and the scientists created what even they call
chimera mice to experiment on.
This article is pro-chimera I admit so you
don't need to pull stuff out of it to
"prove" the worth of creating human/mouse chimera's.
If you think it is ethical to create a mouse with a
human brain, that is your call, then you are pro-chimera
creation for research. I am not.
io9.com...


edit on 10Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:36:05 -0500am81208amk123 by grandmakdw because: addition format



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Pro-choice is pro-abortion, they are the same thing.
If you are for the right of a woman to choose, they
are choosing an abortion, so you are for the right of
a woman to choose an abortion, ie pro-abortion.


Negative. You don't get to define the opposing side of an argument's argument for them. That's called a strawman argument.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I am pro-pregnant women! If the women needs medication for her health, or if the pregnancy is jeopardizing that women's health or well being or if she would have to give up too much (see some of the other posts I've made in these many threads about these videos for clearification).....then I am sorry, the rights of the fetus is secondary to hers!
as far as the research goes...how can you say that because this research goes on, I should reconsider my stand on abortion? at the most it should give me a reason to petition the gov't to change their laws to make such research illegal! not close down women's health clinics or remove gov't funding for them, unless of course the gov't wishes to remove all the funding they provide for the many, many healthcare related items that are in the budget!!!



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Pro-choice is pro-abortion, they are the same thing.
If you are for the right of a woman to choose, they
are choosing an abortion, so you are for the right of
a woman to choose an abortion, ie pro-abortion.


Negative. You don't get to define the opposing side of an argument's argument for them. That's called a strawman argument.


I understand your perspective on the semantics, but my perspective is exactly as I wrote it.
Two perspectives, both valid to each writer. Pro-choice and pro-abortion are the same thing in my eyes.
Justify pro-choice as not being for the right to abortion any way you wish.

How about chimera creation
with the parts of aborted
human beings?

Are you for that?

Does PP need to be involved in the
creation of chimeras by selling the
human parts knowing chimeras
will be created? Is that ethical?
Or do ethics not matter if you are
pro-choice and creating chimeras
is perfectly ok if you are pro-choice?

These are really rhetorical questions when
asked of you, because I already know your
response, highly defensive and protective
of PP despite any and all evidence.

But they are questions for people
who are still open to thinking rationally
about selling tiny human body parts for
the purpose of chimera creation.
Has not PP crossed the line in selling
tiny human body parts knowing that
chimeras will be created out of those parts?



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar

I am pro-pregnant women! If the women needs medication for her health, or if the pregnancy is jeopardizing that women's health or well being or if she would have to give up too much (see some of the other posts I've made in these many threads about these videos for clearification).....then I am sorry, the rights of the fetus is secondary to hers!
as far as the research goes...how can you say that because this research goes on, I should reconsider my stand on abortion? at the most it should give me a reason to petition the gov't to change their laws to make such research illegal! not close down women's health clinics or remove gov't funding for them, unless of course the gov't wishes to remove all the funding they provide for the many, many healthcare related items that are in the budget!!!


The womans rights for her health and well being are paramount in the first 23 weeks, I agree.

However, at week 24 the fetus has rights too. Abortion at 24+ weeks, of which 9,000 are performed each year.
(not as rare as one thinks, see Guttenmacher Institute statistics, I've already posted them too many times).
At week 24 a c-section or induced labor allowing the fetus to live is exactly the same procedure as an abortion, except in the case of abortion, the fetus is killed in utero never giving it a chance to live.

I also think selling body parts of tiny humans
after week 16 is unethical. At that point they are
little human beings. Cutting them up alive in the
womb, or crushing their skulls while alive in the womb,
with no pain medication (they do feel pain at 16 weeks)
is unethical.
After 16 weeks the little bodies should be accorded
the same respect and dignity we would give any
human being at death.
After 16 weeks the little human has a right to
pain medication before being cut up alive or
having it's skull crushed alive.
Selling their parts knowing the parts will be used in
chimera creation is unethical.

For those of you who are pro-abortion, would you
be for allowing the mother to profit from the fetus
and not have to pay for her abortion, all she has
to do is sign a waiver. If PP is getting thousands
for intact tiny babies, why not let the mothers
get free abortions or make money from the
abortions (a donation to the mother for her
pain and trouble) from whomever they choose,
in exchange for the tiny body parts? Lots of
research facilities would open up free abortion
clinics if that were legal. What would be the difference
between this and PP getting more money than it
costs to extract the fetus? Why is PP even charging
women for abortions when they make more money
off the sale of the baby parts? Why not cut out the
middle man and let the women sell their own
tiny baby parts? Would that really be any less
ethical if you are pro-choice?





edit on 10Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:39:43 -0500am81208amk123 by grandmakdw because: addition



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: Gryphon66
Your cognitive process has always fascinated me.

But not enough to engage with you.

I have tried before and found the whole process utterly pointless.




That's funny, because I find your posts, in general and at best, to be garden-variety.

Feel free to continue ignoring me, no love lost here.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join