Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 06 Aug 2015, 2:43 pm

Has anyone changed their opinion concerning Planned Parenthood in light of the recent videos showing the business side of fetal organ harvesting?

My opinion has not changed. More ardent, yes.

Changed? No.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 06 Aug 2015, 10:19 pm

bbauska wrote:Has anyone changed their opinion concerning Planned Parenthood in light of the recent videos showing the business side of fetal organ harvesting?

My opinion has not changed. More ardent, yes.

Changed? No.

I am not up on the evidence on this one. Could you link to something that shows "harvesting"?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 07 Aug 2015, 6:49 am

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/30/politics/planned-parenthood-fourth-video/

This can start you up on your journey.

There are links to the others. Right now there are 5.

I am surprised that you have not heard anything about this. This is big news in the States.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 07 Aug 2015, 9:40 am

bbauska wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/30/politics/planned-parenthood-fourth-video/

This can start you up on your journey.

There are links to the others. Right now there are 5.

I am surprised that you have not heard anything about this. This is big news in the States.

I have heard something but not been paying any attention to it as I have limited capacity at the moment. I can't form a view without seeing the evidence and the context, and to be honest I have avoided trying to form a view. I also don't really know if the US does or does not allow the selling of organs / tissue.

If it is legal, and if the parents of the fetus consent, then I don't know what the issue is with PP (or even anyone else). But I do know here we have had problems of hospitals taking organs of dead children and using them (not commercially) without knowledge or consent. Obviously there is a distinction.

Generally, I think PP do an awful lot of good in terms of helping people access contraception and testing for conditions, which prevents problems down the line for many. Of course those who oppose abortion have a problem with PP, and some will look to anything that bolsters that view.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 07 Aug 2015, 9:48 am

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -national/

It does not appear that Planned Parenthood did anything illegal because the charges for the fetal issue are allowable costs under the statute. And they never actually entered into the agreement with the brokers due to concerns about the wording of the contract. The following article discusses a broker who pays similar amounts to hospitals.http://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/428158408 ... e-research

Discussions regarding research on fetal tissue makes everyone squeamish and it appears that this anti-abortion group calculated that it could embarrass Planned Parenthood by recording such discussions.

It certainly has not changed my views on Planned Parenthood (although they should be a little more aware that anti-abortion groups are out to get them). Perhaps more regulation of how fetal tissue is used for research but that's about it (Owen--the mother has to consent that the aborted fetus's tissue be used for research). I guess I am open to arguments that researchers don't need fetal issue , but presumably they do think it's beneficial given the expense and trouble to obtain it .
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 07 Aug 2015, 10:14 am

Exactly why I asked if there was a change in opinion.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Aug 2015, 9:08 am

freeman3 wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/aug/05/politifact-sheet-8-things-know-about-plan-national/

It does not appear that Planned Parenthood did anything illegal because the charges for the fetal issue are allowable costs under the statute. And they never actually entered into the agreement with the brokers due to concerns about the wording of the contract. The following article discusses a broker who pays similar amounts to hospitals.http://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/428158408 ... e-research

Discussions regarding research on fetal tissue makes everyone squeamish and it appears that this anti-abortion group calculated that it could embarrass Planned Parenthood by recording such discussions.


Gee, what could be "embarrassing" about admitting using different procedures (which is a violation of the law) to preserve certain body parts and then negotiating the price ("donation")?:

I mean, what's the big deal in talking about babies as if they were condiments?

It certainly has not changed my views on Planned Parenthood (although they should be a little more aware that anti-abortion groups are out to get them). Perhaps more regulation of how fetal tissue is used for research but that's about it (Owen--the mother has to consent that the aborted fetus's tissue be used for research). I guess I am open to arguments that researchers don't need fetal issue , but presumably they do think it's beneficial given the expense and trouble to obtain it .


So, hypothetically, is it possible that a woman could attempt to get pregnant in order to receive money from a third party (not PP, which would get "reimbursed" for "transportation costs") for body parts after she has an abortion ?

How much of the video have you watched, freeman3? Are you comfortable with the methods PP uses? Does it give you any pause? If the "parts" are "human," which they have to be in order to have any research value, and they have their own DNA, then precisely how are they part of the mother's body? We hear, "My body; my choice." Is she "donating" her own body--with different DNA? Is that possible?

I think the complete lack of ethics on the part of Planned Parenthood is chilling.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Aug 2015, 6:40 am

bbauska
Exactly why I asked if there was a change in opinion
.

How do you feel about organ donation or donating one's body to science after death?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 10 Aug 2015, 6:53 am

My father had the heart of someone else for 20 years. Take a guess how I felt.

However, if someone murdered my father's donor for the purpose of organ harvesting, I would be mortified!

A better question is why aren't you?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Aug 2015, 9:17 am

bbauska
However, if someone murdered my father's donor for the purpose of organ harvesting, I would be mortified!


I would be too. Other than perhaps the harvesting that apparently goes on in China of executed criminals.... | don't think this happens.Although I could imagine that there are billionaires who might make the sale of organs worth the crime to some. (As per an episode of The Blacklist.)

But you see the abortion of a fetus as murder. I don't.
Although I don't think abortion is just a medical procedure either... I think its a deeply personal decision that women should be allowed to make, up to the point where the fetus might become a viable entity (22 weeks) . The use of the aborted fetus in science research is akin to the donation of the organs of a car accident victim.

And I don't think the night mare scenario where women get pregnant for the money their aborted fetus might deliver as compensation for delivery of usable tissue is real. The payment for the tissue is supposed to be covering private clinic expenses, not compensating the woman.

I don't think I know enough about how valuable the tissue is in science or what the alternatives are to say if the practice should be suspended.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Aug 2015, 10:11 am

rickyp wrote:But you see the abortion of a fetus as murder. I don't.


Which explains the gap, doesn't it?

Although I don't think abortion is just a medical procedure either... I think its a deeply personal decision that women should be allowed to make, up to the point where the fetus might become a viable entity (22 weeks) .


Why?

The use of the aborted fetus in science research is akin to the donation of the organs of a car accident victim.


It was no accident. And, this is open to all sorts of abuse.

And I don't think the night mare scenario where women get pregnant for the money their aborted fetus might deliver as compensation for delivery of usable tissue is real.


Why not? How many drug addicts do you know? What are their ethical guidelines?

The addicts I've know will steal from their family, including their kids. Some are willing to "pimp out" their children. How much different is it to do something "completely legal" for money?

The payment for the tissue is supposed to be covering private clinic expenses, not compensating the woman.


And yet, if some human part were valuable enough, why couldn't this happen?

I don't think I know enough about how valuable the tissue is in science or what the alternatives are to say if the practice should be suspended.


If we could kill 10 adults and cure cancer, should we?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 10 Aug 2015, 10:44 am

China - Strawman
Billionaires - Strawman
Blacklist Strawman/fantasy world

The fetus is a different entity. It has different DNA, it has all the major organ systems operating by 8 weeks. The mother is carrying a person.

That being said, since you brought 22 weeks into the mix; do you support the prohibition on abortion after 22 weeks?

Also being said, since it is a deeply personal issue; do you support the prohibition of all government funds for Planned Parenthood since it is such a deeply PERSONAL issue?

I find your attempt at similarity between a car crash victim and abortion laughable and disturbing. Did a doctor cause the crash? There might be some similarity there, but beyond that, nothing.

If the Fetus signs a waiver I can agree with your theory. Beyond that, it is killing of a living entity.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Aug 2015, 11:22 am

bbauska
That being said, since you brought 22 weeks into the mix; do you support the prohibition on abortion after 22 weeks?


24 weeks I think. Yes With rare exceptions of medical necessity.

bbauska
The fetus is a different entity. It has different DNA, it has all the major organ systems operating by 8 weeks. The mother is carrying a person

The fetus cannot exist outside the womb until 24 weeks. Until it can, it cannot be considered a seperate entity. (As different as its DNA)
That said, about 15% of known pregnancies end in miscarriages, and most before 12 weeks. Would you have a problem with the use of tissue from one of these naturally occurring abortions?

bbauska
Also being said, since it is a deeply personal issue; do you support the prohibition of all government funds for Planned Parenthood since it is such a deeply PERSONAL issue


No,
Planned Parenthood does more to prevent unwanted pregnancies and therefore prevents women from having to make the awful choice . Its the best thing that the US has in the way of medical assistance for poor women. Surely you would want to do everything you could do to assist in their health and well being, and to ensure they don't have to make a choice about aborting an unplanned pregnancy?

fate
It was no accident

But the pregnancy was....
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Aug 2015, 11:58 am

If you have one example of a woman getting an abortion to sell the aborted fetus for research in the US then let's hear it. Otherwise, it's a completely speculative scenario without evidence to support it.

I read through the entire transcripts on the website of the Centers of Medical Research. I don't like the way they talked about the fetuses but I suspect there is a level of dissociation required if you provide abortions . Maybe they have to objectify fetuses as not being a distinct entity or else they would just go crazy thinking about it. I don't approve of the way they talked, but then again I am not in the business. I have heard similar talk in "harvesting" of adult organs.

It seems most likely that the Planned Parenthood personnel were primarily motivated in trying to help research. I guess it's possible that they were thinking they might make a few bucks in the process but only within the permissible limits of the statute allowing for recovery of costs. But the money is minimal. It also has to be remembered that all this was talk to please potential researchers that would be making certain requests. They would have to get approval from Planned Parenthood lawyers and no agreement was entered into or anything improper was actually carried out. I am sure these bogus brokers tried to get a written agreement ( I believed I read somewhere that Planned Parenthood lawyers objected to their proposed agreement). So what are we talking about here--loose talk not actually carried out?

I do think that fetuses should be treated with respect and not objectified (thingified )I don't disagree with attempts at trying to reduce abortion. Our society should be open about sexuality, with early sex education and contraception should be readily available (perhaps even freely). Morning after pills should be widely available as they would terminate the pregnancy at the cellular stage before the human form has reached significant development There is nothing wrong with education on how the fetus has developed at various times of gestatation. I think reducing abortions is an affirmation of the importance of human life.

But at the end of the day this is a woman's life, it is her body, and she gets to make the decision. It is simply abhorrent for the government to tell women that once they get pregnant they must carry the pregnancy to term or face criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court recognized this in allowing an abortion up until the time of viability, because at that point the fetus could live and so the fetus was not dependent on a woman being forced to carry the fetus against her will.

And much of the anti-abortion forces are not on board with freely available contraception. They want abstinence preached. But if we are concerned about preserving human life (and not about controlling women) then we should be providing women (and men ) with as much education and options as possible to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

Fetuses are not things to be objectified. But our culture does not just thingify fetuses. In our capitalistic society we are more or less commodities. Companies are not supposed to have any loyalty to us----as soon as they can find cheaper labor somewhere they are supposed to get that cheaper labor to enhance that bottom line. Animals have been turned into meat without a normal life cycle. They are not really chickens or beef--they are pieces of meat. I became a vegetarian a few years back, mostly for health reasons. But I also started to think--how many animals have to die each day so I can continue to exist? Three , four, five, six? It's one thing to raise animals and eat them after they have had a normal life. But this mechanized production of meat seems inherently wrong to me.

By all means , let's not talk about aborted fetuses as bundles of body parts to be used in research. But we have a whole lot of reification going on in our society and the anti-abortion groups have nothing to say about that. You make people into things that you don 't have any connection to it becomes a whole easier to shoot them if there is the possibility they could do you harm. "It looks like a demon" testified Darren Wilson...notice the use of "it and "demon".
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 10 Aug 2015, 3:07 pm

Well said, Freeman.

Legally, abortion is not murder. Given that, and given that PP (among others) provide abortion services, I am unsurprised that people who oppose abortion oppose PP. But do they also suspend disbelief when a clearly motivated organisation tries to trap them on video?

Other than loose talk that never actually led to any "deal", is there any evidence?