Shocking Video----PP Employees Sorting Baby Body Parts

[ShocksMyBrain 9,364]

So we've reached the Godwin's Law portion of the discussion.

[TitanTiger 20,479]

So we've reached the Godwin's Law portion of the discussion.

Yeah, I knew that someone would invoke that rather than note the disturbing similarity in language and ethos.

[Weegle777 78]

Instead of ripping newborns apart, why don't they just go round up all of the homeless people and harvest their body parts? Is there a difference really?

[ShocksMyBrain 9,364]

So we've reached the Godwin's Law portion of the discussion.

Yeah, I knew that someone would invoke that rather than note the disturbing similarity in language and ethos.

Or you could address what I said.

The abortion happened, there's no changing it. Would you prefer the tissue just be tossed in the garbage or used to potentially help someone?

And I'll restate, I'm not advocating abortion.

[DKW 86 7,419]

So we've reached the Godwin's Law portion of the discussion.

Yeah, I knew that someone would invoke that rather than note the disturbing similarity in language and ethos.

Or you could address what I said.

The abortion happened, there's no changing it. Would you prefer the tissue just be tossed in the garbage or used to potentially help someone?

And I'll restate, I'm not advocating abortion.

Henderson says HI!

The usage of Godwin's Law also has "Henderson's Law" as a corollary, referring to an observation by Joel Henderson that while Mike Godwin specifically stated this to pertain to "gratuitous Hitler-comparisons", Godwin's Law has been frivolously thrown at any comparison no matter how accurate or on-point. Case example: Jon Stewart of The Daily Show criticizing comparisons to Hitler.

Note that the Law is not supposed to apply to serious discussions of Fascist Germany or its policies, but rather describes the logical fallacy of Hitler/Nazi comparisons. The most common forms of this are "The Nazis supported X, therefore X is bad", or alternatively, "The Nazis opposed X, therefore X is good". Whether using "Nazi" as a random insult falls under the Law is a matter of debate. Unfortunately, this has become so popular as to come full-circle, making any discussion of totalitarian regimes susceptible to "HAY GODWIN'S LAW HURR".

As Quirk's Exception points out, attempting to invoke Godwin's Law intentionally in order to force-terminate a thread rarely works.

Read more: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodwinsLaw#ixzz3hI7EknYL

[AURaptor 1,122]

So we've reached the Godwin's Law portion of the discussion.

Does that dismiss anything ? There's still no defense for this ghoulish practice, how ever you cut it up.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Vote to defund PP will proceed in the Senate.

[WarTim 3,456]

Vote to defund PP will proceed in the Senate.

And....the dems will start the whole "war on woman" crap against Republicans and nothing will be done. What a disgrace ...

[TitanTiger 20,479]

So we've reached the Godwin's Law portion of the discussion.

Yeah, I knew that someone would invoke that rather than note the disturbing similarity in language and ethos.

Or you could address what I said.

The abortion happened, there's no changing it. Would you prefer the tissue just be tossed in the garbage or used to potentially help someone?

And I'll restate, I'm not advocating abortion.

You could have done the same. Because mine was an answer, you just had to think it through. But here's a more detailed one.

The use of the parts is problematic for a couple of reasons. First, by allowing this, you are creating a de facto marketplace for these parts. In creating a marketplace, where people can profit either directly (like Stem Express does) or indirectly (by getting the material you need to do certain studies and qualify for various public and private grants), you create a certain amount of vested interest in keeping the supply of material coming. So then the debate over the abortion issue becomes not one of ethics, as it should properly be understood and debated, but one of utilitarian economics. This simply is not something that should be decided on the basis of the fact that a lucrative industry of sorts has devoloped around the availability and buying/selling of aborted baby parts.

Second it's "fruit of the poisoned tree." There have been ongoing medical ethics debates over the use of medical studies the Nazis produced from their experimentation on Jews, both dead and alive. We've had similar ethical questions raised about medical studies that came from things like infecting African Americans or other minorities with certain ailments without their consent. A utilitarian argument simply says, "Well, the [fill in the black with unethical practice] already happened. Why should we let the tissue/information go to waste?" The dilemma there is that if you permit that sort of thinking, you in effect open the door to a "ends justify the means" mentality. Or better yet, a "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission." It's like speed limits. When everyone knows that the state trooper isn't going to pull you over for going 75 mph in a 70 mph zone, the effective speed limit becomes 75. Which is fine for a traffic law, but not so much for medical ethics and human lives.

[WarTim 3,456]

So basically, pro deathers believe Life begins when the infant leaves the hospital ...

[ShocksMyBrain 9,364]

So we've reached the Godwin's Law portion of the discussion.

Yeah, I knew that someone would invoke that rather than note the disturbing similarity in language and ethos.

Or you could address what I said.

The abortion happened, there's no changing it. Would you prefer the tissue just be tossed in the garbage or used to potentially help someone?

And I'll restate, I'm not advocating abortion.

You could have done the same. Because mine was an answer, you just had to think it through. But here's a more detailed one.

The use of the parts is problematic for a couple of reasons. First, by allowing this, you are creating a de facto marketplace for these parts. In creating a marketplace, where people can profit either directly (like Stem Express does) or indirectly (by getting the material you need to do certain studies and qualify for various public and private grants), you create a certain amount of vested interest in keeping the supply of material coming. So then the debate over the abortion issue becomes not one of ethics, as it should properly be understood and debated, but one of utilitarian economics. This simply is not something that should be decided on the basis of the fact that a lucrative industry of sorts has devoloped around the availability and buying/selling of aborted baby parts.

Second it's "fruit of the poisoned tree." There have been ongoing medical ethics debates over the use of medical studies the Nazis produced from their experimentation on Jews, both dead and alive. We've had similar ethical questions raised about medical studies that came from things like infecting African Americans or other minorities with certain ailments without their consent. A utilitarian argument simply says, "Well, the [fill in the black with unethical practice] already happened. Why should we let the tissue/information go to waste?" The dilemma there is that if you permit that sort of thinking, you in effect open the door to a "ends justify the means" mentality. Or better yet, a "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission." It's like speed limits. When everyone knows that the state trooper isn't going to pull you over for going 75 mph in a 70 mph zone, the effective speed limit becomes 75. Which is fine for a traffic law, but not so much for medical ethics and human lives.

First, thank you for responding with a more elaborated response. Second I'll admit that I was being naive in my way of thinking. After reading your post, I believe I'll have some thinking to do.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

To those who have no problem with this practice I have two questions:

1. If you had a baby that died shortly after birth would you be OK with selling it's body parts for medical use/research?

2. Are you donating your own body or possible organ reuse or medical research?

[WarTim 3,456]

-crickets-

[Mims44 1,868]

To those who have no problem with this practice I have two questions:

1. If you had a baby that died shortly after birth would you be OK with selling it's body parts for medical use/research?

2. Are you donating your own body or possible organ reuse or medical research?

1: Nope.

2: Nope

EDIT: Hmmm my earlier post is gone :/

[aujeff11 6,243]

To those who have no problem with this practice I have one question:

If you had baby that died shortly after birth would you be OK with selling it's body parts for medical use/research?

If it is for medical purposes I probably wouldn't care. Just get the body to the medical center to get studied and put to use. That is all I care about. I have already declared to be an organ donor and I am willing to give my dead body to science. I do not see that big of a deal of selling the parts either.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

jeff....fair and honest answer. Let's see how many others answer.

[Strychnine 1,802]

To those who have no problem with this practice I have two questions:

1. If you had a baby that died shortly after birth would you be OK with selling it's body parts for medical use/research?

2. Are you donating your own body or possible organ reuse or medical research?

1. I would absolutely want their body parts used for medical use and/or research. My dead baby's body parts are serving no purpose in a coffin or cremation furnace.

2. I am indeed an organ donor.

[homersapien 11,370]

To those who have no problem with this practice I have two questions:

1. If you had a baby that died shortly after birth would you be OK with selling it's body parts for medical use/research?

2. Are you donating your own body or possible organ reuse or medical research?

1. I would absolutely want their body parts used for medical use and/or research. My dead baby's body parts are serving no purpose in a coffin or cremation furnace.

2. I am indeed an organ donor.

Ditto.

[homersapien 11,370]

-crickets-

I don't see your response.

[TitanTiger 20,479]

To those who have no problem with this practice I have two questions:

1. If you had a baby that died shortly after birth would you be OK with selling it's body parts for medical use/research?

I might be open to donating it for medical research. It might depend on the circumstances. If he or she died because of an uncured disease or rare genetic/medical condition and it was going to a study to help others in the future, probably.

Of course, that's very different from purposely killing the child then using its parts for who knows what.

2. Are you donating your own body or possible organ reuse or medical research?

I'm not donating my whole body to science, but I am an organ donor.

[WarTim 3,456]

-crickets-

I don't see your response.

No problem. #1 Yes. I would "have a problem" and would NOT. #2 NO v

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

To those who have no problem with this practice I have two questions:

1. If you had a baby that died shortly after birth would you be OK with selling it's body parts for medical use/research?

2. Are you donating your own body or possible organ reuse or medical research?

1) Yes. Lost a family member to organ failure. Have no issue with the tissue of my child being used for medical research. It could prevent another couple from losing their child in the future.

2) Yes. I am a organ donor.

3) Should include this one also. If through a procedure I had tissue removed, or was asked for blood for research I would consent yes also. Tissue is also used from living humans.

[WarTim 3,456]

To those who have no problem with this practice I have two questions:

1. If you had a baby that died shortly after birth would you be OK with selling it's body parts for medical use/research?

2. Are you donating your own body or possible organ reuse or medical research?

1) Yes. Lost a family member to organ failure. Have no issue with the tissue of my child being used for medical research. It could prevent another couple from losing their child in the future.

2) Yes. I am a organ donor.

3) Should include this one also. If through a procedure I had tissue removed, or was asked for blood for research I would consent yes also. Tissue is also used from living humans.

I would have no problem with #3. I give blood on a regular basis.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

To those who have no problem with this practice I have two questions:

1. If you had a baby that died shortly after birth would you be OK with selling it's body parts for medical use/research?

2. Are you donating your own body or possible organ reuse or medical research?

1) Yes. Lost a family member to organ failure. Have no issue with the tissue of my child being used for medical research. It could prevent another couple from losing their child in the future.

2) Yes. I am a organ donor.

3) Should include this one also. If through a procedure I had tissue removed, or was asked for blood for research I would consent yes also. Tissue is also used from living humans.

I would have no problem with #3. I give blood on a regular basis.

Curious as to why you would not allow organs/tissue to be used after death but would contribute tissue from surgeries etc while alive. Or were you just referring to the part about blood so three would be a No also?

[WarTim 3,456]

To those who have no problem with this practice I have two questions:

1. If you had a baby that died shortly after birth would you be OK with selling it's body parts for medical use/research?

2. Are you donating your own body or possible organ reuse or medical research?

1) Yes. Lost a family member to organ failure. Have no issue with the tissue of my child being used for medical research. It could prevent another couple from losing their child in the future.

2) Yes. I am a organ donor.

3) Should include this one also. If through a procedure I had tissue removed, or was asked for blood for research I would consent yes also. Tissue is also used from living humans.

I would have no problem with #3. I give blood on a regular basis.

Curious as to why you would not allow organs/tissue to be used after death but would contribute tissue from surgeries etc while alive. Or were you just referring to the part about blood so three would be a No also?

One reason. Because I can do as I please. Personal preference...