Planned Parenthood sells baby parts on the black market and most Americans don't care...

[TitanTiger 20,472]

The more I read about this, the more I begin to think this is a manufactroversy, my feelings on abortion notwithstanding.

Grist for talk radio.

I realize you guys may not be familiar with the Orthocuban blog writer, but he is so NOT an ideologue. He is a very reasonable, moderate voice in the blogosphere particularly on issue of politics and religion. His blog is frequently critical/corrective of Tea Party conservatives (both politically and theologically) on matters of race, politics and other areas. He's a supporter of universal health care for instance. So while others might be hyping this on talk radio, the rejoinders I've shown from Fr. Ernesto are not in that category. At all.

Well the commentary I have heard on local talk radio is all about "PP selling baby parts for profit" as charged by the so called "Center for Medical Progress" group. Of course, they are embellishing even that.

No doubt this is true across the country.

Personally, since such a thing is clearly illegal, I say investigate it. But I guarantee if the outcome of that investigation finds it's without merit, you won't hear it on talk radio.

I understand that. But I don't listen to talk radio. Like, at all. Ever. And so when I posted the comments from the Orthocuban blog, I did so from a place of pointing out legitimate ethical problems that anyone should be very concerned with from an ethical (not just legal) standpoint, regardless of one's views on abortion.

[MDM4AU 332]

The more I read about this, the more I begin to think this is a manufactroversy, my feelings on abortion notwithstanding.

Grist for talk radio.

I realize you guys may not be familiar with the Orthocuban blog writer, but he is so NOT an ideologue. He is a very reasonable, moderate voice in the blogosphere particularly on issue of politics and religion. His blog is frequently critical/corrective of Tea Party conservatives (both politically and theologically) on matters of race, politics and other areas. He's a supporter of universal health care for instance. So while others might be hyping this on talk radio, the rejoinders I've shown from Fr. Ernesto are not in that category. At all.

Well the commentary I have heard on local talk radio is all about "PP selling baby parts for profit" as charged by the so called "Center for Medical Progress" group. Of course, they are embellishing even that.

No doubt this is true across the country.

Personally, since such a thing is clearly illegal, I say investigate it. But I guarantee if the outcome of that investigation finds it's without merit, you won't hear it on talk radio.

I understand that. But I don't listen to talk radio. Like, at all. Ever. And so when I posted the comments from the Orthocuban blog, I did so from a place of pointing out legitimate ethical problems that anyone should be very concerned with from an ethical (not just legal) standpoint, regardless of one's views on abortion.

With some people, unless the source is one of their "approved" sources it is dismissed for being without merit and subject to ridicule.

[AUDub 11,147]

The more I read about this, the more I begin to think this is a manufactroversy, my feelings on abortion notwithstanding.

I might have been inclined to agree until I listened to that section on how they turn the child to be breech [/b]because that's better for keeping the head intact[/b] (which is valuable on the 'parts' market). That is so calloused and heartless. And if true it violates all sorts of medical ethics.

So where did she say they turn to breech exclusively to keep the head intact? Are you sure she's not simply touting a benefit (ugh) of the method used?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

The more I read about this, the more I begin to think this is a manufactroversy, my feelings on abortion notwithstanding.

I might have been inclined to agree until I listened to that section on how they turn the child to be breech [/b]because that's better for keeping the head intact[/b] (which is valuable on the 'parts' market). That is so calloused and heartless. And if true it violates all sorts of medical ethics.

So where did she say they turn to breech exclusively to keep the head intact? Are you sure she's not simply touting a benefit (ugh) of the method used?

I'm at work and can't listen to the video or give you a timestamp for where it is, but here is Fr. Ernesto's recap of the pertinent section:

But, medical bioethicists also would have questions about what transpires later in the conversation. Dr. Nucatola goes on to speak about their experience in using forceps in such a way as to not crush hearts, lungs, pelvises, or whatever body part it is that is wanted. To my great dismay, she even goes on to speak about how the baby can be turned so that a breech birth is what happens. Let me ask at this point, how many of you have read stories from other centuries in which a breech birth is to be avoided if at all possible? Breech births are more dangerous than head first births. But, let’s go on.

Dr. Nucatola also admits that a woman undergoing an abortion often does not dilate as far as a woman with a regular births. So, she even touts the breech technique as being more likely to get the woman to dilate a little more so that they can provide an intact head to those who wish one. In other words, the techniques are not being performed for the good and safety of the patient, but rather for the good and profit of the local Planned Parenthood involved. And, it is here that I wish those who are pro-choice to pay special attention. The rule, since Hippocrates, is to do no harm. Over the centuries that has come to include that you should perform no procedure in such a way that you actually increase the risk of harm to a patient over performing it another way.

She is specifically saying they manipulate the position of the baby to make it breech because it makes a woman dilate more - with the end goal being that an intact head can be delivered to those who want one on the market.

[DKW 86 7,419]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/07/15/dont-rush-to-judge-planned-parenthood/

Indeed, a transcript of the entire lunch released by Center for Medical Progress, the anti-abortion group behind the intended sting, provides reassuring evidence of how Planned Parenthood affiliates operate and also of what kind of person Dr. Nucatola is. That the video posted online has been artfully edited has been pointed out by Media Matters, Mother Jones and others. The complete transcript, for example, has Dr. Nucatola stressing that “nobody should be ‘selling’ tissue. That’s just not the goal here” and that non-profit affiliates seek only reimbursement costs for expenses so as to break even.

Sometimes the emotions may just get ahead of the reality. No one on this forum dislikes abortion more than me, but this really seems to be much ado about nothing if you dont buy the highly edited video.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

http://www.washingto...ned-parenthood/

Indeed, a transcript of the entire lunch released by Center for Medical Progress, the anti-abortion group behind the intended sting, provides reassuring evidence of how Planned Parenthood affiliates operate and also of what kind of person Dr. Nucatola is. That the video posted online has been artfully edited has been pointed out by Media Matters, Mother Jones and others. The complete transcript, for example, has Dr. Nucatola stressing that “nobody should be ‘selling’ tissue. That’s just not the goal here” and that non-profit affiliates seek only reimbursement costs for expenses so as to break even.

Sometimes the emotions may just get ahead of the reality. No one on this forum dislikes abortion more than me, but this really seems to be much ado about nothing if you dont buy the highly edited video.

But that is a different issue than what I am pointing out here. She discusses practices that seriously violate medical ethics for the purpose to getting preferred baby parts. That is completely different than any argument over whether it's ok to sell parts or get reimbursed for shipping and handling.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

From the full transcript linked above:

PP: Exactly. So then you’re just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex, because when it’s vertex presentation, you never have enough dilation at the beginning of the case, unless you have real, huge amount of dilation to deliver an intact calvarium. So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end. So I mean there are certainly steps that can be taken to try to ensure—

Buyer: So they can convert to breach, for example, at the start of the—”

PP: Exactly, exactly. Under ultrasound guidance, they can just change the presentation.

Buyer: Okay.

PP: So the preparation would be exactly the same, it’s just the order of the removal of the products is different. And most people see that as not very-

Buyer: Yea, we’re not talking about it needs to be a hysterotomy or anything, or something crazy like that, in order to- there’s probably an easier solution to this problem.

PP: And, we’ve been pretty successful with that. I’d say.

Just so everyone understands what is being said here, "vertex presentation" is the normal and preferred way a baby comes out for vaginal delivery which is head first and feet last. This is as opposed to a "breech presentation" where either the feet or buttocks of the infant are positioned to come out the birth canal first with the head coming last. This a much harder delivery on the mother and can even be very dangerous to her health. Doctors will almost without fail work to reposition the baby back to a vertex presentation for a vaginal delivery, if they are able and have the time. Often, a C-section is done instead if the time isn't there and the mother needs relief now rather than being able to wait. What a doctor NEVER does to my knowledge is take a vertex presentation and PURPOSELY manipulate it to a breech presentation.

But the PP doctor here is describing doing exactly that. The "calvarium" is the baby's head. So they are talking about changing from a vertex to a breech presentation as a method of being able to deliver an intact head, which is desirable for those requesting fetal "tissue" to work with. They are messing with the delivery in a way that is more risky to the mother for the purpose of providing better/more desirable parts. That is a gross violation of medical ethics and THAT is what should be thoroughly investigated.

THAT is not, in any way, shape, form or fashion, "much ado about nothing."

[DKW 86 7,419]

I understand that Titan, and like i said, no one dislikes abortion more than me. But, the end result is the same. It doesnt look to be for profit etc. If they are harvesting, for some valid medical reason, parts that are otherwise going to be sucked into a sink or a trash can, then i can only say that it is in some small way better than trashing all the tissue of the unborn baby. But make no mistake about it, this is a human life being extinguished.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I understand that Titan, and like i said, no one dislikes abortion more than me. But, the end result is the same. It doesnt look to be for profit etc. If they are harvesting, for some valid medical reason, parts that are otherwise going to be sucked into a sink or a trash can, then i can only say that it is in some small way better than trashing all the tissue of the unborn baby. But make no mistake about it, this is a human life being extinguished.

I think it may be even more disturbing if they are willing to increase risk to the woman's health by changing the presentation without a profit motive. What sort of twisted ethic does one operate under if they aren't even being influenced by material gain to do things that fly in the face of medical ethics? That makes them the worst sort of ideologue imaginable.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

The website where this video was posted has added the full unexpurgated version of the videos that make up the clip that made the rounds yesterday to answer allegations of things being taken out of context.

Still don't trust this group. My brother in law was a actor when he was younger, now has his own business where he does commercials and film projects such as editing. He could rig you a video that you wouldn't know if it was edited or not.

Louisiana is sending Health and Human Services in to investigate though (saw that announced same day). Probably several other states will do the same. Figure it will occur on a national level and that is what needs to occur.

I will take medical journals and actual doctors over a Cuban Orthodox Priest (his bio indicates in no way that he is a medical professional if he is one)

Looking around there are huge debates on whether a C-section should be done in case of a breech. Studies even indicate that it can be more dangerous for the mother and the child and that vaginal should occur. Also it appears the majority of issues with breech have to do with safety for the child and not the mother. Huge debate on consent in regards to C-section and vaginal birth of a breech. Many doctors/studies argue that it is just as safe as a head first birth. Interestingly enough it is a valuable skill that many doctors thinks needs to be taught and is disappearing in the medical community (in favor of C-section). Appears like many things in life, it comes down to the skill of the performer. So his statements on a breech birth are not accurate.

You're misunderstanding what the PP doctor said. She didn't indicate they chose to have a woman with a breech baby to deliver vaginally instead of some safer method. The woman here is indicating that they turned the baby to make it breech because that was preferable for delivering an intact head. In other words, they chose a method of delivery that was about maximizing parts for the aftermarket than what was best for the mother. They weren't debating vaginal vs C-Section, it was changing a normal position for the baby that is the safest way for a mother to deliver, to breech for monetary value.

Also, I'll have to dig but I think Fr. Ernesto has a background as a nurse, possibly during his days in military service. I may be misremembering, but I'll look.

I know that is what the video is claiming. I don't trust the video or the organization that just popped out of nowhere on the scene this month.

The C-section vs vaginal birth is the biggest debate and what carries the majority of the research on breech birthing. His statement about breech vs head is heavily debated as that is the basis of doing C- Section births in this instance. That is why I mentioned the C - section. The dangers in the reading appear to always be to the child (which unfortunately is a moot point in this context).

ECV videos are interesting. Watching a doctor manipulate a breached baby from outside the womb. The mothers are all smiling, some outright laughing, and all seemed perfectly fine during the procedure.

I would be curious to what the consent is for mothers when they agree to let the tissue be sent elsewhere and what they inform them about the procedure to obtain the tissue.

I also know why they are doing this with the tissue. For example one company is working on using the tissue to grow kidneys to be used in transplants. The purpose of this is to address the kidney shortage. A disease that took my own fathers life.

Unfortunately with our current lifestyles and attitudes on health in the United States shortages for organs are only going to continue to increase. And yes, the money will be really good due to the demand.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I know that is what the video is claiming. I don't trust the video or the organization that just popped out of nowhere on the scene this month.

The full video clips AND the full printed transcript has been posted and is now on this thread. It's not what the video is "claiming", it is what the PP doctor said. And they are not disputing that transcript.

ECV videos are interesting. Watching a doctor manipulate a breached baby from outside the womb. The mothers are all smiling, some outright laughing, and all seemed perfectly fine during the procedure.

The medical consensus is that breech births are still to be avoided if at all possible. Turning the baby is not the hurtful or dangerous part of it. It's actually trying to deliver vaginally in breech position that is going to be difficult, more risky and more painful in the vast majority of cases for the mother. So to purposely turn a baby to breech is highly irresponsible.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

The website where this video was posted has added the full unexpurgated version of the videos that make up the clip that made the rounds yesterday to answer allegations of things being taken out of context.

Still don't trust this group. My brother in law was a actor when he was younger, now has his own business where he does commercials and film projects such as editing. He could rig you a video that you wouldn't know if it was edited or not.

Louisiana is sending Health and Human Services in to investigate though (saw that announced same day). Probably several other states will do the same. Figure it will occur on a national level and that is what needs to occur.

I will take medical journals and actual doctors over a Cuban Orthodox Priest (his bio indicates in no way that he is a medical professional if he is one).

Looking around there are huge debates on whether a C-section should be done in case of a breech. Studies even indicate that it can be more dangerous for the mother and the child and that vaginal should occur. Also it appears the majority of issues with breech have to do with safety for the child and not the mother. Huge debate on consent in regards to C-section and vaginal birth of a breech. Many doctors/studies argue that it is just as safe as a head first birth. Interestingly enough it is a valuable skill that many doctors thinks needs to be taught and is disappearing in the medical community (in favor of C-section). Appears like many things in life, it comes down to the skill of the performer. So his statements on a breech birth are not accurate.

Touchy subject that so many people toss out bad information.

Like only Godless liberals have abortions and lead the way. Yet a 50 year old plus institute dedication to sexual and reproduction health reports that is no where near the case.

Anti-abortion websites screaming that abortion is dangerous to mother when professional journals and research like in Obstetrics & Gynecology show that it is actually significantly safer than childbirth.

That more and more people are getting abortions and being irresponsible when over the last 5 years abortion rates are down an average of 12.5% in 48 states and we are seeing record lows in teenage pregnancy that we have not seen in decades.

Like I said if they are guilty then burn em and let them rot. But I want to see legitimate agencies and professional medical analysis of their practices they are accused of.

And that's the problem. I can post sources that state that this is happening and post stats on different aspects of abortion and many here will say bs. Then they will post their own sources and say that theirs is gospel truth. No one really knows the truth. You can pick and choose which source will fit what you want to believe. Same with any topic here.

Well my three that I picked were where I showed proof to individuals that never provided any proof, article, of any sort to their statements here.

Example A: Christian based website that discusses why the Guttmacher Institute numbers occur (Titans warning on people just saying Christian to associate is fair (how strong is their faith argument), but most people today will just say they aren't):

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/40519-why-do-so-many-churchgoers-have-abortions

Example B: Abortion is safer than child birth medically comes from this journal (and I would agree that you can probably find some medical research to challenge it):

http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/pages/default.aspx

I would agree with the concept that risk increases if you add in the psychological post abortion factors in regards to danger. Problem is the same people that would accept psychological danger/health for this, also will refute psychological danger/health in the instance of a rape victim that wants an abortion (cause I got slammed for using that same defense).

http://liveactionnews.org/abortion-safer-than-childbirth-not-where-suicide-is-concerned/

The comment about dropping rates is easily found. The information comes from the states Health Departments in the United States. The original article I link is here in the past two weeks with the full statistics of each state.

The replies that I get challenging those are.........libtards are libtards and dumb. Godless heathens with no responsibility........... etc etc.

[WarTim 3,456]

The more I read about this, the more I begin to think this is a manufactroversy, my feelings on abortion notwithstanding.

Grist for talk radio.

I realize you guys may not be familiar with the Orthocuban blog writer, but he is so NOT an ideologue. He is a very reasonable, moderate voice in the blogosphere particularly on issue of politics and religion. His blog is frequently critical/corrective of Tea Party conservatives (both politically and theologically) on matters of race, politics and other areas. He's a supporter of universal health care for instance. So while others might be hyping this on talk radio, the rejoinders I've shown from Fr. Ernesto are not in that category. At all.

Well the commentary I have heard on local talk radio is all about "PP selling baby parts for profit" as charged by the so called "Center for Medical Progress" group. Of course, they are embellishing even that.

No doubt this is true across the country.

Personally, since such a thing is clearly illegal, I say investigate it. But I guarantee if the outcome of that investigation finds it's without merit, you won't hear it on talk radio.

I understand that. But I don't listen to talk radio. Like, at all. Ever. And so when I posted the comments from the Orthocuban blog, I did so from a place of pointing out legitimate ethical problems that anyone should be very concerned with from an ethical (not just legal) standpoint, regardless of one's views on abortion.

Agree 100%. One must listen to the audio to understand why this MUST be investigated. Tax $$$ involved in this Horror...

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I know that is what the video is claiming. I don't trust the video or the organization that just popped out of nowhere on the scene this month.

The full video clips AND the full printed transcript has been posted and is now on this thread. It's not what the video is "claiming", it is what the PP doctor said. And they are not disputing that transcript.

ECV videos are interesting. Watching a doctor manipulate a breached baby from outside the womb. The mothers are all smiling, some outright laughing, and all seemed perfectly fine during the procedure.

The medical consensus is that breech births are still to be avoided if at all possible. Turning the baby is not the hurtful or dangerous part of it. It's actually trying to deliver vaginally in breech position that is going to be difficult, more risky and more painful in the vast majority of cases for the mother. So to purposely turn a baby to breech is highly irresponsible.

And I'm not buying the video. I got a brother in law that can fix you a video up really nice.

That medical consensus is challenged. It is why they are arguing against C-sections, it is why they are saying it should need mothers consent, it is argued in the medical community that it is just as safe especially with a skilled and competent medical staff. Especially in Europe it appears. We are in the United States where C -section = more $$$ to the tune of about 20k.

We also are not talking about babies that are full term or at the 37 week mark either. So that kind of blows both our research out of the water to be truthful.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

And I'm not buying the video. I got a brother in law that can fix you a video up really nice.

Sure. But they've also posted the raw clips that the video was compiled from. And they've provided a full transcript in print. AND neither Planned Parenthood nor the doctor in it are disputing the raw video or the printed transcript. So disbelieve it if you like, but you're doing so on faith.

That medical consensus is challenged...

The medical consensus between a breech birth being delivered vaginally or via c-section is being challenged. The choice between a vaginal birth in vertex presentation or in breech presentation is NOT. When delivering vaginally, it is preferable to deliver in vertex presentation over breech if at all possible. You certainly don't take someone whose baby is in the vertex position and change it to breech for a vaginal delivery.

We also are not talking about babies that are full term or at the 37 week mark either. So that kind of blows both our research out of the water to be truthful.

That is immaterial. The transcript clearly shows that the amount of dilation the woman is able to get to is a problem for them. So whatever week mark it's at, it's enough that the head is going to be an issue...if the priority is delivering intact heads to parts people and not the affect on the mother.

[AUDub 11,147]

I know that is what the video is claiming. I don't trust the video or the organization that just popped out of nowhere on the scene this month.

The full video clips AND the full printed transcript has been posted and is now on this thread. It's not what the video is "claiming", it is what the PP doctor said. And they are not disputing that transcript.

ECV videos are interesting. Watching a doctor manipulate a breached baby from outside the womb. The mothers are all smiling, some outright laughing, and all seemed perfectly fine during the procedure.

The medical consensus is that breech births are still to be avoided if at all possible. Turning the baby is not the hurtful or dangerous part of it. It's actually trying to deliver vaginally in breech position that is going to be difficult, more risky and more painful in the vast majority of cases for the mother. So to purposely turn a baby to breech is highly irresponsible.

One wonders if that's the case with a pregnancy that is nowhere near full term.

[AUDub 11,147]

That is immaterial. The transcript clearly shows that the amount of dilation the woman is able to get to is a problem for them. So whatever week mark it's at, it's enough that the head is going to be an issue...if the priority is delivering intact heads to parts people and not the affect on the mother.

For all I know, the gradual dilation resulting from the breech position may be more convenient for the mother.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

That is immaterial. The transcript clearly shows that the amount of dilation the woman is able to get to is a problem for them. So whatever week mark it's at, it's enough that the head is going to be an issue...if the priority is delivering intact heads to parts people and not the affect on the mother.

For all I know, the gradual dilation resulting from the breech position may be more convenient for the mother.

The stated reason, by the doctor here, is not that they move it to the breech position for the mother's convenience. They move it that way from the vertex presentation to make it easier for them to keep the head intact for the people wanting these parts. Again, let's look at what the PP doctor actually says:

PP: It makes a huge difference. I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is the calvarium, the head is basically the biggest part. Most of the other stuff can come out intact. It’s very rare to have a patient that doesn’t have enough dilation to evacuate all the other parts intact.

Buyer: To bring the body cavity out intact and all that?

PP: Exactly. So then you’re just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex, because when it’s vertex presentation, you never have enough dilation at the beginning of the case, unless you have real, huge amount of dilation to deliver an intact calvarium. So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end. So I mean there are certainly steps that can be taken to try to ensure—

Buyer: So they can convert to breach, for example, at the start of the—”

PP: Exactly, exactly. Under ultrasound guidance, they can just change the presentation.

https://cbsla.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/ppfatranscript072514_final.pdf

You have to work really hard to ignore the reason here, Ben. It's not for the mother's health. Not for her comfort. Not for her convenience. It is for the purpose of delivering an intact head. The entire segment of the discussion here is about how they try hard to deliver as many parts intact and undamaged to the buyers as possible. And with the head specifically, they turn the baby into the breech position, which is never indicated as a preferable thing for a mother, for the sole purpose of getting a better part.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I know that is what the video is claiming. I don't trust the video or the organization that just popped out of nowhere on the scene this month.

The full video clips AND the full printed transcript has been posted and is now on this thread. It's not what the video is "claiming", it is what the PP doctor said. And they are not disputing that transcript.

ECV videos are interesting. Watching a doctor manipulate a breached baby from outside the womb. The mothers are all smiling, some outright laughing, and all seemed perfectly fine during the procedure.

The medical consensus is that breech births are still to be avoided if at all possible. Turning the baby is not the hurtful or dangerous part of it. It's actually trying to deliver vaginally in breech position that is going to be difficult, more risky and more painful in the vast majority of cases for the mother. So to purposely turn a baby to breech is highly irresponsible.

One wonders if that's the case with a pregnancy that is nowhere near full term.

The head is evidently big enough that it is a major consideration in getting the mother to dilate enough to maximize the amount of parts they get intact.

I've been Googling. I've yet to find any situation where a medical site or journal cites moving a baby from vertex to breech being a recommended course of action.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

And I'm not buying the video. I got a brother in law that can fix you a video up really nice.

Sure. But they've also posted the raw clips that the video was compiled from. And they've provided a full transcript in print. AND neither Planned Parenthood nor the doctor in it are disputing the raw video or the printed transcript. So disbelieve it if you like, but you're doing so on faith.

That medical consensus is challenged...

The medical consensus between a breech birth being delivered vaginally or via c-section is being challenged. The choice between a vaginal birth in vertex presentation or in breech presentation is NOT. When delivering vaginally, it is preferable to deliver in vertex presentation over breech if at all possible. You certainly don't take someone whose baby is in the vertex position and change it to breech for a vaginal delivery.

We also are not talking about babies that are full term or at the 37 week mark either. So that kind of blows both our research out of the water to be truthful.

That is immaterial. The transcript clearly shows that the amount of dilation the woman is able to get to is a problem for them. So whatever week mark it's at, it's enough that the head is going to be an issue...if the priority is delivering intact heads to parts people and not the affect on the mother.

You are taking on faith that the raw video is actually the raw video also. Statements will also be based on legal consul which I'm sure is going on as we speak.

it is argued in the medical community that it is just as safe especially with a skilled and competent medical staff

That part of the full statement that you left out is discussing that a breached birth is just as safe as a head birth. If it were not then the debate over C- sections would not be happening. I pointed that earlier. Also that the arguments around breach deal with the child's health which obviously isn't under consideration in an abortion.

Actually it might not be immaterial, as it appears depending on the development, rotation of the fetus is normal in dilation and extraction:

Two days before the procedure, laminaria is inserted vaginally to dilate the cervix. Your water should break on the third day and you should return to the clinic. The fetus is rotated and forceps are used to grasp and pull the legs, shoulders, and arms through the birth canal. A small incision is made at the base of the skull to allow a suction catheter inside. The catheter removes the cerebral material until the skull collapses. The fetus is then completely removed.

http://americanpregn...ical-abortions/

This would actually describe why LA is the first state to announce that it will investigate planned parenthood. Cause the description fits a partial birth technique. Which is banned in LA and they were the first state to do so. The ban has to do with the child and not the mother. So actually if this is normal then there really is no need to defend the fact that they are rotating the fetus in the womb depending on the state they are doing those procedures in.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I know that is what the video is claiming. I don't trust the video or the organization that just popped out of nowhere on the scene this month.

The full video clips AND the full printed transcript has been posted and is now on this thread. It's not what the video is "claiming", it is what the PP doctor said. And they are not disputing that transcript.

ECV videos are interesting. Watching a doctor manipulate a breached baby from outside the womb. The mothers are all smiling, some outright laughing, and all seemed perfectly fine during the procedure.

The medical consensus is that breech births are still to be avoided if at all possible. Turning the baby is not the hurtful or dangerous part of it. It's actually trying to deliver vaginally in breech position that is going to be difficult, more risky and more painful in the vast majority of cases for the mother. So to purposely turn a baby to breech is highly irresponsible.

One wonders if that's the case with a pregnancy that is nowhere near full term.

The head is evidently big enough that it is a major consideration in getting the mother to dilate enough to maximize the amount of parts they get intact.

I've been Googling. I've yet to find any situation where a medical site or journal cites moving a baby from vertex to breech being a recommended course of action.

And that is the bodies normal way of delivery.

There are arguments over acclimation of the human body to climates for purposes such as athletics. Debate on time frame, the best method in regards to safety, efficiency etc.

I doubt you will Google and find where a medical site or journal will argue to fight against the bodies natural response, which is as it is exposed to a climate it acclimates. I'd be really interested in seeing the purpose and research that recommended not letting a body acclimate to a climate.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I'm not following.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

You would agree that the body's natural state for a birth is head first since that is what occurs in 97% of pregnancies correct? There probably are no reasons to birth a full term child breached medically.

Now if it is not in the normal position there are debates. Do you do a C-section, do you turn the baby through EVC, is it just as safe to birth the baby breech. So there are debatable issues. The methods of dealing with a breech.

The normal reaction of the human body is to make physiological changes that allows it to adapt and change to a climate (heat, cold, humidity etc).

Now as far as how long does it take (most say two weeks), type and length of exposure for safety during acclimation, there are debated issues there. The methods of obtaining acclimation.

So I doubt you will find arguments to prevent or stop or reverse the bodies acclimation to a temperature. Cause it is the way the body is suppose to react naturally. There probably is no reason to prevent the body from acclimating to a climate.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

You would agree that the body's natural state for a birth is head first since that is what occurs in 97% of pregnancies correct? There probably are no reasons to birth a full term child breached medically.

Now if it is not in the normal position there are debates. Do you do a C-section, do you turn the baby through EVC, is it just as safe to birth the baby breech. So there are debatable issues. The methods of dealing with a breech.

The normal reaction of the human body is to make physiological changes that allows it to adapt and change to a climate (heat, cold, humidity etc).

Now as far as how long does it take (most say two weeks), type and length of exposure for safety during acclimation, there are debated issues there. The methods of obtaining acclimation.

So I doubt you will find arguments to prevent or stop or reverse the bodies acclimation to a temperature. Cause it is the way the body is suppose to react naturally. There probably is no reason to prevent the body from acclimating to a climate.

I'm still not understanding what you are driving at. Is this something about how if we let the woman stay long enough with a baby in breech position her body will acclimate? And if so, I'm not sure why it matter. I'm just not understanding what point you are trying to make.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Skeptical of the Planned Parenthood Video? Me too.

It’s not easy to get over the shock of this week’s news.

After all, an institution that has become, for so many, a paragon of the American virtues of freedom, choice, and healthcare has been put in the crosshairs.

From the perspective of Planned Parenthood, the best-case scenario is that an underhanded attack has occurred to its sterling reputation as a champion of women’s health.

Indeed, in the description of its official response on YouTube, the worldwide leader in abortion refers to The Center for Medical Progress’ uncut 2 hour, 42 minute recording as a “video hoax.”

The video captures a lunch meeting where Planned Parenthood’s top medical director, Dr. Deborah Nucatola describes the precise procedures the organization undertakes in order to harvest specific organs during an abortion from the unborn child.

Telling potential buyers how expert her national team has become in harvesting specific organs during an abortion, Dr. Nucatola points out that the abortion providers she trains utilize ultrasound and change the position of the baby during the procedure in order to dismember him or her in a way that keeps specific organs intact.

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact,” Dr. Nucatola says in the video.

As it has been pointed out universally, Dr. Nucatola’s shockingly cavalier tone—for which Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards apologizes in the video—underscores what those in the pro-life community call the depravity, or inhumanity of abortion itself.

But honest questions have arisen since the video’s release this Tuesday. I want to highlight three of the best questions I’ve come across, and engage these questions with integrity and (I hope) clarity.

1. Is the video valid in the first place?

The validity of the video ought to be the first question we ask ourselves, before resorting to whichever is our default stance on abortion.

Is the video real? Does it depict the conversation in context? In truth?

I have to admit, when I first saw a link to the video Tuesday morning, I passed it off as clickbait.

Harvesting and selling baby body parts? Get real, fellow pro-lifers. After all, for years it has been publicized in pro-life corners that Pepsi uses fetal cells in its products… Wait, where are you going?

Yes, as I said, my first response on seeing the headlines for Planned Parenthood harvesting and selling baby body parts was to pass it by. (This coming from someone whose job it is to write about pro-life issues!)

In other words, if you’re skeptical, I’m with you. But remember, a true skeptic asks questions. That’s the difference between a skeptic and an agnostic. One asks questions, while the other just, well, questions.

But, my fellow skeptics, here are a couple of facts about the video to consider:

First, the video is posted in its entirety, unedited in all its shocking glory. If you have close to three hours and don’t mind watching someone eat salad and drink red wine while they talk about disassembling and selling babies, I highly recommend you watch the whole thing.

Planned Parenthood and the mainstream media would have us believe the PR drivel about the 9-minute video’s being edited. But if you’re a skeptic, be skeptical about that kind of response from an organization with a reputation and $1.2 billion in taxpayer funding on the line.

Be skeptical enough to watch the whole video.

Second, Planned Parenthood has responded to the video and apologized for it. Why, we must ask, would an apology—minute as it was—be in order if there was nothing to the video in the first place?

Has any organization, ever in the history of PR, apologized for a baseless attack from the enemy?

From my lofty perch as a communications director at Heartbeat International, I can tell you without reservation that we never apologize when we are on the receiving end of vicious, baseless, and might I add video-less attacks on pregnancy help organizations from the likes of NARAL Pro-Choice America or Cosmopolitan.

Even in today’s topsy-turvy world of morality, an apology is an admission of wrongdoing.

Now, that Planned Parenthood apologized for the tone of its highest-ranking medical official—referred to in the video as a “staff member”—doesn’t necessarily mean that the video is legitimate.

But let’s just make a mental note that, at least Planned Parenthood thinks the video’s real.

Another objection to the video’s legitimacy is the argument that the mainstream media hasn’t run with it because they aren’t convinced that it’s authentic. Borrowing from Mollie Hemmingway’s excellent piece over at the The Federalist, it’s fair to say that the mainstream media doesn’t, as a rule, wait for a video to be authenticated and put into context before they generate and spread the story far and wide.

After all, this is the same mainstream media who were convinced about Manti Te’o’s dead-yet-nonexistent girlfriend because of a couple of Tweets.

If there’s anything to remain skeptical about, direct your skepticism to the response to the video, not the video itself.

2. If not used for science, what should we do with the remains from aborted babies?

A friend asked me on Facebook last night, “What did you think was being done with the remains of the aborted?”

This is an excellent question It will lead us right to the heart of the matter, if we let it.

We are outraged not merely at the harvesting and sale of the body parts of America’s aborted babies, but the monstrous worldview it points to. What was once unwanted in its whole—a baby—is suddenly wanted for its parts, like an old clunker at Pick-N-Pull.

But my friend is right to point out the alternative, which is to simply throw away the remains of an aborted child. Put his or her body in the dumpster?

Of course not! To do so would be to betray our commitment to the eternal truth of, “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.”

Here’s where the question leads to the heart of the matter: It assumes abortion as a necessity, like food and water. This simply isn’t the case.

Just a glance at the disproportionate supply and demand equation for adoption—36 couples waiting to adopt for every adoption—tells us that every child is already a wanted child.

Furthermore, of the 1.2 million American abortions every year, fewer than two percent are related to the so-called “exceptions” of rape, incest, and life of the mother combined.

If you go further into the rabbit hole, you find former abortionists like Dr. Anthony Levatino, who has testified before Congress that, in 1,200 abortions, he never saw a case where abortion was necessary to save the life of a mother.

Whatever we think about the video, surely we can agree that human beings amount to more than the sum total of our parts.

3. What about the mother signing an informed consent form?

Did you know that, in the case of an organ transplant, there are two separate teams who are specifically separated so each can attend to the best interests of both the donor and the recipient?

In an interview at The Gospel Coalition website, bioethicist Jennifer Lahl, president of The Center for Bioethics and Culture, makes this reality known, pointing out that the separation between medical teams of donor and recipient is ensured by federal law.

However, as Lahl goes on to say, “Unborn children do not have the status, in the United States, as a patient, so they’re not protected by laws that normally would protect patients.”

What the video of Dr. Nucatola demonstrates, beyond the shadow of a doubt, is that unborn babies—while not considered persons legally—certainly have “human organs” like livers, heads, legs, and hearts.

The gruesome logical disconnect between a being who is comprised of human body parts and an actual human being—a person—is difficult to fathom.

But it cuts right to the heart of the matter. This is what it means to have “Abortion on-demand and without apology.” Our children are treated as if they do not exist, while their organs are treated as valuable commodities, spare parts.

It’s very possible that the mothers who are robbed of motherhood by Planned Parenthood’s abortion practitioners routinely sign consent forms for the distribution and sale of their dead babies’ body parts.

As much as Big Abortion wants to parrot its own, “My body, my choice” propaganda, the fact of the matter is, when it comes to selling baby body parts, we’re not talking about a woman’s body, but about a baby’s.

And maybe we should’ve been talking about that all along.