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

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Anyway, the OP is about a lie meant to slander Planned Parenthood. Planned parenthood offer counseling on abortion, adoption and parenting.

They don't guide patients to any option for the purpose of making a profit. They're purpose is to serve women, not push a given procedure.

And you claim not to be a man of faith.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Ya well some of the people around here (not you) like to throw out statements without any truth. They are also the ones that I view as the biggest hypocrites cause they will complain about programs like WIC and CHIPS. Hey, its out of the womb... who cares if as a infant it dies of illness or malnutrition.

Like I said before

Pro-Choice while in the womb do what you want, but once it is out it better be taken care of in some way.

Pro-Life while in the womb it's a being with great potential, but once it is out it is a burden to society and taxpayers (depending on the income of the parents of course).

Sorry, but this is the biggest fact-free, conscience-assuaging, pro-choice fairy tale going today. For domestic adoptions right now, there are 36 couples waiting for a child for every child that gets adopted. Pro-life people are among the largest givers to charities that take care of pregnant women and children. They are the biggest proponents (and partakers) of adoption. My pastor, of a medium sized conservative, evangelical church back in Nashville had four biological children already and chose to adopt two boys of another race. AND he preached about adoption and started a major initiative in our church for others to adopt - especially encouraging people to be open to non-infants and across racial lines. The worship leader at the church my wife grew up in here just adopted a child after he and his wife already had two biological ones. In fact, I can't even keep up with all the people I know from Nashville and Alabama in Christian circles alone who have gone down this path - not because they couldn't have kids on their own, but because they wanted to open their homes and hearts to more kids.

Pro-life people put their words into action AFTER kids are born constantly. I may not always agree with the side of a debate some of them take over private charity vs gov't assistance, but to characterize it as pro-lifers not caring once it's born is total and utter malarky.

As individuals, I would agree. However, politically, I think that is questionable. I think your dismissal is a little to quick and convenient.

The post I was responding to didn't have a "I'm talking about the GOP political strategies" qualifier.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Actually that is my own statement from my own observations. I have no clue if that is what pro-choice is subscribing to or pushing. I don't follow them, rally with them, get their literature etc. My opinion is based on the attacks of programs such as WIC and CHIPS. Then things like being in the Opelika Walmart on EBT day and overhearing all the Auburn soccer moms complaining about the issue with one wearing a pro-life T. Or many of the comments about children on the Southside of Chicago. Seen similar comments on this board also.

I also realize there are large group of pro-life that do good and don't just talk the talk. I know pro-choice people that are huge into supporting adoption.

I know there are people that wish to adopt in this country. I have stated more than once I want adoptions to happen and the system needs to be changed to make it easier. I have family members that have gone outside the country cause of this system. By the time I am married and ready for children I will be in that 35 up range. Meaning it is a very real possibility my wife might be a woman that can't have kids (assuming she is same age). Then we would have to adopt. I would prefer to adopt in the United States, but if we are sitting on lists and getting pushed cause we are over 35 then I'm going out of the country.

You seem to have the ability to only find and be around the most benevolent, honest, sinless, charitable beings on this Earth. I congratulate you on that.

Out of curiosity I googled it. They do press that issue. My view wasn't influenced by them, it was influenced by my own viewings of individuals in societies where I lived.

And you seem to form opinions about pro-lifers only from the most obnoxious, selfish beings on this Earth. My condolences on that.

I don't seek out these people. I don't realize they are there when I choose a place to worship or meet people at work. They're just there. And they aren't that hard to find. It's just amazing how much people surprise you when you aren't cramming them into the same box with some Tea Party yokel that is more libertarian than Christian, more Ayn Rand than Jesus Christ.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

The research I have read (and I have seen research saying it is just as safe with skilled physicians and safer than a C-section) in regard to vaginal birthing is that the dangers are in the child. Greater chances of fetal cord compression and fetal distress. So why put the baby in danger if you are going to by turning it to a breech? But unfortunately in what we are discussing the babies health is a moot point.

Ok. I guess I don't get why you even brought it up.

Cause you said you couldn't find research to purposefully breech a baby during birth. I was just saying it is that way for many other things with the human body also.

How is that relevant? We know vertex presentation is natural. We know it's always easier on the mother with the less potential for maternal death, less painful and more comfortable (relatively speaking obviously). Yet here we have someone purposely turning it. And it's not to make the mother more comfortable, make it easier on her or anything to do with her. It's to salvage more intact baby parts. That was my point. They are choosing something that is potentially worse for the mother because they want to traffic more 'good' baby pieces.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Anyway, the OP is about a lie meant to slander Planned Parenthood. Planned parenthood offer counseling on abortion, adoption and parenting.

They don't guide patients to any option for the purpose of making a profit. They're purpose is to serve women, not push a given procedure.

You forgot education and resources for birth control.

True.

I was referring only to the pregnant women who seek counsel from PP. But that's in important part of their services also.

If only that caring and concern translated to all human beings and not just some to the exclusion of others.

[homersapien 11,367]

Anyway, the OP is about a lie meant to slander Planned Parenthood. Planned parenthood offer counseling on abortion, adoption and parenting.

They don't guide patients to any option for the purpose of making a profit. They're purpose is to serve women, not push a given procedure.

And you claim not to be a man of faith.

Well you seem to be buying into the proposition that PP is pushing abortions as a preferred option to make a profit.

Is that what you "believe"?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Anyway, the OP is about a lie meant to slander Planned Parenthood. Planned parenthood offer counseling on abortion, adoption and parenting.

They don't guide patients to any option for the purpose of making a profit. They're purpose is to serve women, not push a given procedure.

And you claim not to be a man of faith.

Well you seem to be buying into the proposition that PP is pushing abortions as a preferred option to make a profit.

Is that what you "believe"?

I didn't say that. I said that they may be more concerned with the baby parts market than they are the mother in question, if this Dr. Mengele talking on the video is par for the course.

[homersapien 11,367]

Anyway, the OP is about a lie meant to slander Planned Parenthood. Planned parenthood offer counseling on abortion, adoption and parenting.

They don't guide patients to any option for the purpose of making a profit. They're purpose is to serve women, not push a given procedure.

And you claim not to be a man of faith.

Well you seem to be buying into the proposition that PP is pushing abortions as a preferred option to make a profit.

Is that what you "believe"?

I didn't say that. I said that they may be more concerned with the baby parts market than they are the mother in question, if this Dr. Mengele talking on the video is par for the course.

So you believe in the video? You take it on faith that PP is pushing abortions for profit?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Anyway, the OP is about a lie meant to slander Planned Parenthood. Planned parenthood offer counseling on abortion, adoption and parenting.

They don't guide patients to any option for the purpose of making a profit. They're purpose is to serve women, not push a given procedure.

And you claim not to be a man of faith.

Well you seem to be buying into the proposition that PP is pushing abortions as a preferred option to make a profit.

Is that what you "believe"?

I didn't say that. I said that they may be more concerned with the baby parts market than they are the mother in question, if this Dr. Mengele talking on the video is par for the course.

So you believe in the video? You take it on faith that PP is pushing abortions for profit?

What part of "I didn't say that" didn't compute?

I believe the full video and accompanying transcript is accurate. The doctor said what she said. She wasn't taken out of context and her tone isn't the main problem.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I just noticed this on the website the video came from. It's a follow up on their blog:

Planned Parenthood makes two key admissions in their statement today: 1) aborted fetal parts are harvested at their clinics, and 2) money is exchanged in connection with this. They also tell several lies: 1) That proper consent is obtained from patients, 2) That Planned Parenthood does not make money off the body parts, and 3) that everything is legal.

The Center for Medical Progress has obtained an advertisement to Planned Parenthood clinics (http://www.centerfor...press-flyer.pdf) from StemExpress, LLC, one of the major purchasers of Planned Parenthood's aborted fetal tissue. This flyer advertises 4 different times the financial benefit that Planned Parenthood clinics can receive from supplying fetal tissue, with the words: "Financially Profitable," "Financial Profits," "financial benefit to your clinic," "fiscal growth of your own clinic." The advertisement carries an endorsement from Planned Parenthood Medical Director Dr. Dorothy Furgerson.

None of this is standard across the mainstream medical field, but it is standard across Planned Parenthood's insular and unaccountable abortion field.

I looked at the PDF. Unless StemExpress contends the brochure is doctored, or Planned Parenthood denies working with them, I'd have to say it at least raises the question as to whether these clinics are profiting financially from providing these parts to StemExpress.

[AURex 1,994]

In this politically driven discussion, allow me to insert some facts.

1. This sort of thing is extremely COMMON throughout the practice of medicine. At large hospitals associated with medical schools, tissues are commonly excised in the most careful manner to obtain quality samples. This includes human tissues, body parts and organs affected by disease or donated. So long as it does not cause harm to the patient, it is common practice.

2. The excised body tissues are frozen or otherwise preserved or kept in a viable state for research purposes.

3. The tissues and body parts are commonly shared with others involved in research -- and with for profit companies involved in research.

4. The cost of handling and shipping (an agreed upon amount) is commonly paid to the hospital to cover the costs.

5. The permission of the patient is not required and the patient is never compensated.

This is all routine. And it is all perfectly legal.

Now, the fact that some people's feelings and sensibilities are offended by this does not change anything. A non-viable fetus is treated no differently from a tumor or diseased spleen or brain segment. It is surgically removed, preserved, transported and used for research.

At least in so doing, it contributes to development of new medical advances that aid the human race, rather than just being tossed in a bin or burned.

The reason no action was taken before now us that it is legal and common practice through out the biomedical research world to do this sort of thing. PP has done nothing illegal.

Now, people may find it offends their feelings, but unless the laws are changed, PP has not done anything illegal.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

The research I have read (and I have seen research saying it is just as safe with skilled physicians and safer than a C-section) in regard to vaginal birthing is that the dangers are in the child. Greater chances of fetal cord compression and fetal distress. So why put the baby in danger if you are going to by turning it to a breech? But unfortunately in what we are discussing the babies health is a moot point.

Ok. I guess I don't get why you even brought it up.

Cause you said you couldn't find research to purposefully breech a baby during birth. I was just saying it is that way for many other things with the human body also.

How is that relevant? We know vertex presentation is natural. We know it's always easier on the mother with the less potential for maternal death, less painful and more comfortable (relatively speaking obviously). Yet here we have someone purposely turning it. And it's not to make the mother more comfortable, make it easier on her or anything to do with her. It's to salvage more intact baby parts. That was my point. They are choosing something that is potentially worse for the mother because they want to traffic more 'good' baby pieces.

Why was it relevant to point out you cant find research that says turn the baby to a breached position for a full term birth?

You also said it was irrelevant that I mentioned we are not talking about a full term birth. Yet you keep giving me full term birth info which I don't think applies.

As doing more research it appears that babies lay sideways up until about week 24-26 or are already in a breeched position (so it will have to be turned on way or the other). In weeks 30 to 32 the baby begins naturally turning into the normal head first birthing position. The latest you can perform an abortion, depending on the state, is the 24th week.

So it appears in the case of abortion we are dealing with 1) a fetus already in a breech position, or 2) a fetus that is sideways in the womb and has to be turned. This in a womb that has not yet developed to accept the fetus head first.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Why was it relevant to point out you cant find research that says turn the baby to a breached position for a full term birth?

Because others questioned whether it was really that big a deal.

You also said it was irrelevant that I mentioned we are not talking about a full term birth. Yet you keep giving me full term birth info which I don't think applies.

As doing more research it appears that babies lay sideways up until about week 24-26 or are already in a breeched position (so it will have to be turned on way or the other). In weeks 30 to 32 the baby begins naturally turning into the normal head first birthing position. The latest you can perform an abortion, depending on the state, is the 24th week.

So it appears in the case of abortion we are dealing with 1) a fetus already in a breech position, or 2) a fetus that is sideways in the womb and has to be turned. This in a womb that has not yet developed to accept the fetus head first.

No, we aren't. And why aren't we? Because the doctor herself told us we aren't. She told us they are purposely turning the baby to breech position for the purpose of making it easier to get an intact head out of this whole thing. No other reason and it wasn't already that way.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Actually that is my own statement from my own observations. I have no clue if that is what pro-choice is subscribing to or pushing. I don't follow them, rally with them, get their literature etc. My opinion is based on the attacks of programs such as WIC and CHIPS. Then things like being in the Opelika Walmart on EBT day and overhearing all the Auburn soccer moms complaining about the issue with one wearing a pro-life T. Or many of the comments about children on the Southside of Chicago. Seen similar comments on this board also.

I also realize there are large group of pro-life that do good and don't just talk the talk. I know pro-choice people that are huge into supporting adoption.

I know there are people that wish to adopt in this country. I have stated more than once I want adoptions to happen and the system needs to be changed to make it easier. I have family members that have gone outside the country cause of this system. By the time I am married and ready for children I will be in that 35 up range. Meaning it is a very real possibility my wife might be a woman that can't have kids (assuming she is same age). Then we would have to adopt. I would prefer to adopt in the United States, but if we are sitting on lists and getting pushed cause we are over 35 then I'm going out of the country.

You seem to have the ability to only find and be around the most benevolent, honest, sinless, charitable beings on this Earth. I congratulate you on that.

Out of curiosity I googled it. They do press that issue. My view wasn't influenced by them, it was influenced by my own viewings of individuals in societies where I lived.

And you seem to form opinions about pro-lifers only from the most obnoxious, selfish beings on this Earth. My condolences on that.

I don't seek out these people. I don't realize they are there when I choose a place to worship or meet people at work. They're just there. And they aren't that hard to find. It's just amazing how much people surprise you when you aren't cramming them into the same box with some Tea Party yokel that is more libertarian than Christian, more Ayn Rand than Jesus Christ.

You know I'm glad you found these people and that they exist. I wish there were more of them out there.

I don't know if you realize this or not, and hell it could just be me. But on certain issues you come across at others in a very judgmental way. Like with the flag issue (family fought for the south, have an actual flag from the war and the journal that details why he fought, yet we are sad cause we own it), or your comments personally at me and my conscience on this. So ya man. When someone says something personnel about me like that it registers as a negative check in the mental box on that issue for your side. Like you didn't have a issue with me at taking the shot at the hypocrisy of the pro-choice view....... kill kill kill till birth then take care of it for life. Laid into me for taking the hypocrisy you can find on the pro-life side though. I went after both sides in that comment and you crammed me in the box.

I will be completely honest. I've had one pregnancy scare and the only two choices for me were take care of the child or put the child up for adoption. There is no other option for me personally. I though can not make that decision for another person. It is their burden, they are going to have to answer for their choice. If they were to ask me what I thought, then I'd say take responsibility or put up for adoption. The only Pro-Choice stance I will take a hardcore stance on is in the instance of rape.

So in my ideal world abortion would be outlawed. Any couple that wanted to keep their child could. Any mother that wanted to keep their child could. Any father that wanted to keep their child could. Abortion would be legal in the case of rape, incest, health threat to the mother.

So see. Not a fan of abortion, but due to my rape stance I can't fall into the Pro-life category. The majority of them disagree with abortion for any reason.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

You know I'm glad you found these people and that they exist. I wish there were more of them out there.

I wish there were more as well. But there are a lot more than you think already.

I don't know if you realize this or not, and hell it could just be me. But on certain issues you come across at others in a very judgmental way. Like with the flag issue (family fought for the south, have an actual flag from the war and the journal that details why he fought, yet we are sad cause we own it),

I'm sorry. I don't mean to come across that way. And on the flag issue, I was more addressing the sudden surge in CF paraphernalia being "sad" (which was what my first time using "sad" was in response to). But beyond that, I was thinking more of those who are displaying it publicly. If you choose to do that, you are essentially saying you don't care what that symbol means to others. Your right to fly it is what's most important. If you have an authentic flag and other historical items from your ancestors in your home, then someone has come into your home and there is opportunity to talk about those family artifacts and heirlooms in a deeper way.

or your comments personally at me and my conscience on this. So ya man. When someone says something personnel about me like that it registers as a negative check in the mental box on that issue for your side. Like you didn't have a issue with me at taking the shot at the hypocrisy of the pro-choice view....... kill kill kill till birth then take care of it for life. Laid into me for taking the hypocrisy you can find on the pro-life side though. I went after both sides in that comment and you crammed me in the box.

I don't identify as pro-choice aside from the life of the mother. A life is equal in stature to another life. But I can't speak for them. I did see the hypocrisy comment on pro-lifers though and knowing what I know, knowing the people I know, and seeing how often that canard is used to dismiss pro-life arguments without having to do the work of engaging the reality of what's going on, it stuck out to me.

I will be completely honest. I've had one pregnancy scare and the only two choices for me were take care of the child or put the child up for adoption. There is no other option for me personally. I though can not make that decision for another person. It is their burden, they are going to have to answer for their choice. If they were to ask me what I thought, then I'd say take responsibility or put up for adoption. The only Pro-Choice stance I will take a hardcore stance on is in the instance of rape.

So in my ideal world abortion would be outlawed. Any couple that wanted to keep their child could. Any mother that wanted to keep their child could. Any father that wanted to keep their child could. Abortion would be legal in the case of rape, incest, health threat to the mother.

So see. Not a fan of abortion, but due to my rape stance I can't fall into the Pro-life category. The majority of them disagree with abortion for any reason.

I think there are quite a few people on the pro-life side who feel that way. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, if we could get it down to just those instances, it would be something I'd jump at the chance to sign into law. All of those situations combined add up to around 3% of all abortions here. Eliminating 97% of abortions would be too wonderful of an accomplishment for human rights to allow the Perfect to be the enemy of the Good.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Why was it relevant to point out you cant find research that says turn the baby to a breached position for a full term birth?

Because others questioned whether it was really that big a deal.

You also said it was irrelevant that I mentioned we are not talking about a full term birth. Yet you keep giving me full term birth info which I don't think applies.

As doing more research it appears that babies lay sideways up until about week 24-26 or are already in a breeched position (so it will have to be turned on way or the other). In weeks 30 to 32 the baby begins naturally turning into the normal head first birthing position. The latest you can perform an abortion, depending on the state, is the 24th week.

So it appears in the case of abortion we are dealing with 1) a fetus already in a breech position, or 2) a fetus that is sideways in the womb and has to be turned. This in a womb that has not yet developed to accept the fetus head first.

No, we aren't. And why aren't we? Because the doctor herself told us we aren't. She told us they are purposely turning the baby to breech position for the purpose of making it easier to get an intact head out of this whole thing. No other reason and it wasn't already that way.

And if a fetus in the womb is transverse it has to be turned one way or the other. So they are turning it into a breech. Is that any different than turning it to a head first position at this point of development? Especially if the womb has yet to develop to allow for that position yet.

If we are going to do the argument about the physiological responses then lets try and do them correctly. The last available week to do a abortion occurs 6 weeks before a fetus generally turns head down (week 30-32). So week 24 and under we are discussing a fetus that is either transverse or breached. Head down will be the rarity at this point of development. Uterus space is not even a issue at 24 weeks and under in most cases so the fetus can be doing somersaults and it wouldn't matter.

The add in: So I am agreeing they are purposefully turning them to breech for tissue samples. But my question now is if the baby is transverse or breech at this stage, which I'm seeing the majority are, is there a difference in the discomfort, pain, by turning a transverse breech vs head down?

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

You know I'm glad you found these people and that they exist. I wish there were more of them out there.

I wish there were more as well. But there are a lot more than you think already.

I don't know if you realize this or not, and hell it could just be me. But on certain issues you come across at others in a very judgmental way. Like with the flag issue (family fought for the south, have an actual flag from the war and the journal that details why he fought, yet we are sad cause we own it),

I'm sorry. I don't mean to come across that way. And on the flag issue, I was more addressing the sudden surge in CF paraphernalia being "sad" (which was what my first time using "sad" was in response to). But beyond that, I was thinking more of those who are displaying it publicly. If you choose to do that, you are essentially saying you don't care what that symbol means to others. Your right to fly it is what's most important. If you have an authentic flag and other historical items from your ancestors in your home, then someone has come into your home and there is opportunity to talk about those family artifacts and heirlooms in a deeper way.

or your comments personally at me and my conscience on this. So ya man. When someone says something personnel about me like that it registers as a negative check in the mental box on that issue for your side. Like you didn't have a issue with me at taking the shot at the hypocrisy of the pro-choice view....... kill kill kill till birth then take care of it for life. Laid into me for taking the hypocrisy you can find on the pro-life side though. I went after both sides in that comment and you crammed me in the box.

I don't identify as pro-choice aside from the life of the mother. A life is equal in stature to another life. But I can't speak for them. I did see the hypocrisy comment on pro-lifers though and knowing what I know, knowing the people I know, and seeing how often that canard is used to dismiss pro-life arguments without having to do the work of engaging the reality of what's going on, it stuck out to me.

I will be completely honest. I've had one pregnancy scare and the only two choices for me were take care of the child or put the child up for adoption. There is no other option for me personally. I though can not make that decision for another person. It is their burden, they are going to have to answer for their choice. If they were to ask me what I thought, then I'd say take responsibility or put up for adoption. The only Pro-Choice stance I will take a hardcore stance on is in the instance of rape.

So in my ideal world abortion would be outlawed. Any couple that wanted to keep their child could. Any mother that wanted to keep their child could. Any father that wanted to keep their child could. Abortion would be legal in the case of rape, incest, health threat to the mother.

So see. Not a fan of abortion, but due to my rape stance I can't fall into the Pro-life category. The majority of them disagree with abortion for any reason.

I think there are quite a few people on the pro-life side who feel that way. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, if we could get it down to just those instances, it would be something I'd jump at the chance to sign into law. All of those situations combined add up to around 3% of all abortions here. Eliminating 97% of abortions would be too wonderful of an accomplishment for human rights to allow the Perfect to be the enemy of the Good.

It is all good to me man. I didn't think you were purposefully trying to be judgmental. Why I said hey, it might just be me. Heck you're probably the most calm and rationale person around here lol.

While I doubt I would ever take a position at OBGYN I sure am learning alot debating with you on it. So I appreciate that.

Like I said if they as a group really are endangering and breaking the law then burn em down. I think they do alot of good from other standpoints (education and such about sex, pregnancy, etc), but I think someone would pick up the slack in those areas.

[AURex 1,994]

Let us never allow facts to get in the way of emotional/political arguments.

As I pointed out previously, there us nothing illegal or uncommon about the actions of PP. It is common throughout the fields of biomedical research.

You can argue forever about whether you like it or not. You can wish and hope and pray and march with signs for changes in the law. But there is nothing legally awry in this entire situation.