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.

 

In the Market for Fetal Body Parts

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
That special U.S. House of Representatives panel has been hearing various testimonies from people about aborted baby parts and how there might be a connection to breaking a law or two.

They've now actually got some "market" prices for specific body parts, and they ain't cheap.

Apparently lots of middlemen involved in the brokering and "sales" evidently "for profit".

The claim is under some federal law, the transportation of fetal tissue is supposed to be based on nonprofit.

I don't know who the "legal" profiteers are or aren't or should be or who the "non-profiteers" are or should be.

Yikes !!!

In the Market for Fetal Body Parts, a Baby’s Brain Sells for $3,340


Republicans on the special House panel investigating the transfer of fetal tissue from aborted babies will present evidence in a hearing today that breaks down the price per body part.

With release of this evidence, Republicans say, they have enough documentation to show that several abortion clinics and middleman procurement businesses may have violated federal law.

“It is just horrifying,” Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who leads the House’s investigation of the fetal tissue industry, told The Daily Signal. “They are putting a dollar value on these organs from these children—unborn children that have been aborted. It is just beyond belief.”


Parts is Parts






posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Hey now!
Those are just shipping and handling charges...



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
1. I honestly don't care if an abortion clinic DOES sell tissue at a profit.
2. If you (or by extension, the people in the article) are going to level accusations that the purported costs of tissues exceeds the costs of obtaining/containing/transporting said tissues, you (or they) had better have some documentation. Otherwise this is no different than every other hyperventilating anti-choice thread you and others have slapped onto this board.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Here's some direct info from The House....

The Pricing of Fetal Tissue

Witnesses, testimonies, etc.




posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
what is the nature of the research, and who could potentially benefit from it ?

they aren't selling blood to zombies here, can we be a little less sensational.....



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
So, we know the market exists. The question is how much of it was legal because mom knowingly donated the body for research purposes and how much of it was done below the board without mom's consent.

You know though, it seems to me that if we are marketing this, and it's sick to do, then why isn't the mom making the money and why don't we allow people to market off their other organs?

Why is a baby special?



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsukoYou know though, it seems to me that if we are marketing this, and it's sick to do, then why isn't the mom making the money
Because that actually WOULD cause people to get abortions for gross reasons.


and why don't we allow people to market off their other organs?

Why is a baby special?
Because it's unethical? Donating your organs after death doesn't matter to the dead person. Donating an aborted fetus's tissues affects neither the fetus, NOR the decision to abort the fetus in the first place. But if you're suggesting it should be legal to sell the organs while they're alive, that's when we get into dystopia territory.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Hey now!
Those are just shipping and handling charges...


That would make more sense than restocking fees.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

I would agree except that the baby didn't ask to be aborted or donated making the entire market unethical for any tissue other than that from spontaneously aborted or medically necessary tissue.

A human can decide if he or she wants to donate his or her organs voluntarily. If it's unethical for me to sell my spare kidney and for a woman to get pregnant to sell the resulting baby, then it should be unethical for her abortion provider to sell the baby too in all instances as it encourages them to push abortion over other possible outcomes for the baby ... like adoption.
edit on 20-4-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

I would agree except that the fetus didn't ask to be aborted or donated making the entire market unethical for any tissue other than that from spontaneously aborted or medically necessary tissue.
Whether abortions are legal/ethical or not is not the issue at hand here, which is what your post boils down to. It doesn't matter why the fetus is dead; it's dead now. It's tissues are of no use to it.

If you honestly think people base their decision, even in part, on whether or not the abortion clinic will make a buck off the tissue, I don't know what to say to you. Use your brain instead of your emotions.
edit on 20-4-2016 by AshOnMyTomatoes because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

So then why aren't all the people who die likewise made into automatic donors whose various body parts and tissues are to be sold by the medical facility in question?

As you say, they are dead and what happens to them makes no difference.
edit on 20-4-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

So then why aren't all the people who die likewise made into automatic donors whose various body parts and tissues are to be sold by the medical facility in question?

As you say, they are dead and what happens to them makes no difference.
Because they grew up and acquired beliefs and legal rights.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

A human being has legal rights regardless of what it does or does not know. It has those rights because it is human.

To think otherwise is to say that a human in a vegatative state has no legal rights.
edit on 20-4-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Apparently, the info is so good, that the Republicans refuse to say where it came from. Keeping the sources even from their Democratic co-workers on the commission, these documents are highly suspect.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

A human being has legal rights regardless of what it does or does not know. It has those rights because it is human.

To think otherwise is to say that a human in a vegatative state has no legal rights.
A child does not have the same legal rights an adult has. A child cannot sign a legally binding document. And again, the point is moot, because we are not talking about a living being. Are you repulsed by the mother that allowed her deceased child's heart to be donated to a recipient, and then visited the recipient to hear the heart beating in their chest? The kid didn't have a say in that, because it was a kid.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   
So what of the case of organ transplant? If someone dies a "brain death" and they have donated their organs (or their parent/guardian chooses to donate their organs) and another person then has the chance to live a longer life due to their gift, well, is that wrong?

We can say, well, that person chose to donate! In the case of children, however, their mother and/or father chooses for them. It is a horrible thing for a parent to have to decide, but they often do make that decision, and it has the ability to give life back to someone else who is dying. Someone else whose child is dying then benefits from the tragedy.

I know abortions don't happen, generally, by accident. I know it also involves parental choice, usually prior to viability of the fetus, so it is not yet able to live on its own. In the case of a brain-dead child, the child is also not able to live on their own. The obvious, and very important difference, which I'm not denying here, is that most likely a fetus would be able to become viable given enough time. In the case of organ transplant, there is no hope of the child coming off of the machines keeping the organs temporarily "alive." It is a tragedy in either case, in my opinion.

So, I'm not going to argue about whether it is "right or wrong" to make the choice to abort, but I do see a correlation between transplant and valuable medical research that comes from studying fetal organs and tissues. If a legal abortion happens, then perhaps a blessing can come from the fact.


Finally, just like in transplants, there is great expense in collecting and transporting the organs safely and effectively.
These are old numbers (1996) but it gets the point across:


Similarly, the expense of transporting an organ will vary considerably depending on the distance and mode of travel. The GAO found that the costs of transporting organs varied from a few hundred dollars for ground travel to several thousand dollars for air travel. The committee assumed that the expense of organ acquisition would be increased under broader sharing because of the sharing of organs over a greater geographical area. However, the committee was unable to estimate the magnitude of this change, given uncertainties about how the Final Rule will be implemented, how much larger the new geographical areas will be and how they will affect travel times, and how the organ acquisition practices of transplant centers might change over time. The potential increase might appear significant in absolute dollars. However, as shown in Table 7-3, expenditures for procurement are a relatively minor component of overall expenditures for transplantation. Therefore, such an increase would likely have a marginal impact on total cost.
NCBI - Costs - Organ Procurement and Transplantation

From "Table 7-3" in the above quote - Procurement Costs in 1996 (so you know its much more now):

Heart = $25,200
Lung = $24,800
Kidney = $22,400
Liver = $24,700

I hope that adds some sense of perspective? Again, I'm not arguing the ethics of either abortion or transplant but rather, if legally done, is it wrong to have some kind of light, in the form of giving life or health to others (through research and developing cures), result from tragedy?

It is a very emotional issue. If you've ever had someone waiting for an organ transplant so that they could live, especially a child...well...as much as you don't want the horror that will befall some other family, you hope that if it does, they will choose to give someone else, your loved one, life from the ashes of their tragedy.

- AB



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Apparently someone has sold their brain to even consider that a publication from the Heritage Foundation has anything but agenda driven, right wing propaganda.

Show us another source please....



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   
gee, after spending a bit of time comparing the panels documents with those that can be found on the CMP's website, I believe I found one of their main sources for their information.



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: xuenchen

Apparently someone has sold their brain to even consider that a publication from the Heritage Foundation has anything but agenda driven, right wing propaganda.

Show us another source please....


At least we finally know the recipients of those fetal brains being sold...right-wing politicians.




top topics



 
6

log in

join