Largest US abortion provider caught on tape selling body parts

[Dr Jack]

The New York Times is a biased source. It lies.

Ha! You're the one promoting a video which has been deliberately edited to make it appear that things that didn't happen actually occurred and you're accusing the NYT of being biased? Wow!

Did the second video showing the Planned Parenthood Medical Director haggling over prices mislead as well.

It was edited to make it falsely appear that this was the case.

The fact is Planned Parentood are selling human organs. They are selling them and making a profit.

This is a lie.

 

[spudbynight]

Ha! You're the one promoting a video which has been deliberately edited to make it appear that things that didn't happen actually occurred and you're accusing the NYT of being biased? Wow!

The entire video is available to watch. The second video is also available to watch.

In both videos, senior employees of Planned Parenthood do say what they are accused of.

It was edited to make it falsely appear that this was the case.

So you are suggesting the PP employees didn't actually say what is claimed?

This is a lie.

Nope, it is a truth, and one exposed by their own words. Hoist by their own petard, so to speak.

 

[Dr Jack]

The entire video is available to watch. The second video is also available to watch.

Yes, and if you watched them, you'd discover they've been edited to falsely present what the Planned Parenthood employees actually said and did.

So you are suggesting the PP employees didn't actually say what is claimed?

This is a very "when did you stop beating your wife?" style of question. Did they say the words presented? Yes. Did those words mean what they're presented as meaning after they've been carefully edited to remove the context? No, they don't.

The concept of editing a video to make people appear to be saying something they're not isn't too difficult for you to understand, I trust?

Nope, it is a truth, and one exposed by their own words. Hoist by their own petard, so to speak.

No, it's desperate lying by a morally bankrupt and repellent organisation which believes it's crusade against women frees it from moral principles they, themselves, claim to hold to.

 

[spudbynight]

Yes, and if you watched them, you'd discover they've been edited to falsely present what the Planned Parenthood employees actually said and did.



This is a very "when did you stop beating your wife?" style of question. Did they say the words presented? Yes. Did those words mean what they're presented as meaning after they've been carefully edited to remove the context? No, they don't.

The concept of editing a video to make people appear to be saying something they're not isn't too difficult for you to understand, I trust?



No, it's desperate lying by a morally bankrupt and repellent organisation which believes it's crusade against women frees it from moral principles they, themselves, claim to hold to.

What blinkered nonsense.

 

[Dr Jack]

Here's a couple more links taking apart these dishonest videos:

Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video

3 Deceptive Edits In The Video Claiming Planned Parenthood Is "Selling Aborted Baby Parts"

The simply fact is that every claim made the euphemistically titled "The Center for Medical Progress" is a lie. What's more they knew it was a lie when they deliberately edited the video to make it appear that things they know to be false were true.

 

[shorttricky]

Did the second video showing the Planned Parenthood Medical Director haggling over prices mislead as well.

I assume you mean this one? The one where the stingers encourage all talk of costs (including trying to negotiate upwards) and the medical director confirms that it's nothing to do with profit - repeatedly?

The prices needed to be "worth her while" as she needed to pay for a Lamborghini.

Boy, did you just hear what you wanted to hear. Unless you missed the "no" and the head shake immediately after she said that?

The fact is Planned Parentood are selling human organs.

Yes. With consent, using suitable techniques that have no medical impact on the patient and with a further caveat that the performing surgeon has final say on everything.

They are selling them and making a profit.

No. They are covering costs, as per 42 U.S. Code § 289g—2 - a point she covers in the video.

Global medical consensus says otherwise, but they are wrong and "some chap on the Internet" knows better.

The global medical consensus is that the process of growing a human starts with conception. When "life" begins is purely philosophical argument which cannot be solved by science - not yet anyway.

This is a good read about the various stages that you could perfectly justifiably consider life begins - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin?

By the way, I've met plenty of nurse and doctors that work in Gynaecology wards, many of whom have had different opinions about when life actually begins. By and large though, their consensus was neurology - when an EEG begins to look like that of a human. That's around 24-27 weeks.

The reason most of them chose that, is that it is the opposite of when you determine death, when any recognisable EEG activity ceases.

 

[spudbynight]

I assume you mean this one? The one where the stingers encourage all talk of costs (including trying to negotiate upwards) and the medical director confirms that it's nothing to do with profit - repeatedly?

Boy, did you just hear what you wanted to hear. Unless you missed the "no" and the head shake immediately after she said that?



Yes. With consent, using suitable techniques that have no medical impact on the patient and with a further caveat that the performing surgeon has final say on everything.



No. They are covering costs, as per 42 U.S. Code § 289g—2 - a point she covers in the video.

I completely disagree with you, however the great thing is people can watch the videos and make up their own minds. Over 2.5 million people have now watched the first video.

The global medical consensus is that the process of growing a human starts with conception. When "life" begins is purely philosophical argument which cannot be solved by science - not yet anyway.

This is a good read about the various stages that you could perfectly justifiably consider life begins - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin?

By the way, I've met plenty of nurse and doctors that work in Gynaecology wards, many of whom have had different opinions about when life actually begins. By and large though, their consensus was neurology - when an EEG begins to look like that of a human. That's around 24-27 weeks.

The reason most of them chose that, is that it is the opposite of when you determine death, when any recognisable EEG activity ceases.

I've already quoted numerous medical textbooks that disagree with you. However I am sure you wiki is a much better source.

 

[shorttricky]

I've already quoted numerous medical textbooks that disagree with you. However I am sure you wiki is a much better source.

You've quoted numerous medical textbooks cherry picked by a pro-life site with a clear agenda. But yeah, looking at a wiki is ridiculous. Got it.

By the way, if you actually bothered to click the link, you'd see it details the various stages that have been considered as the starting points of life, including religious considerations. It makes no judgement on which one is correct. Still, I'm sure your pro-life site is full of balanced debate (see, I can use sarcasm too ).

 

[spudbynight]

You've quoted numerous medical textbooks cherry picked by a pro-life site with a clear agenda. But yeah, looking at a wiki is ridiculous. Got it.

By the way, if you actually bothered to click the link, you'd see it details the various stages that have been considered as the starting points of life, including religious considerations. It makes no judgement on which one is correct. Still, I'm sure your pro-life site is full of balanced debate (see, I can use sarcasm too ).

Well, why don't you cite some medical textbooks that support your opinion on when life begins.

 

[Dr Jack]

Well, why don't you cite some medical textbooks that support your opinion on when life begins.

You continue to equivocate.

 

[Dr Jack]

I completely disagree with you, however the great thing is people can watch the videos and make up their own minds. Over 2.5 million people have now watched the first video.

How many people have watched the actual videos? The one's that the "Center for Medical Progress" haven't dishonestly edited to make them appear to be saying something they're not.

 

[Xordium]

That's equally incompatible with the view that identity can be assigned at conception.

No it's not. It's a view that accepts identity starts there and is mutable for the duration.

U wot M8?

I tell you what - you progress beyond EYFS literacy and we'll have a chat about how we can explain something that is actually rather simple to someone who appears to be rather simple.

 

[Dr Jack]

No it's not. It's a view that accepts identity starts there and is mutable for the duration.

Which is a view that identity is not determined at conception.

 

[spudbynight]

You continue to equivocate.

In what way. I have been very clear in putting forward the view that life begins at conception. I have been very clear in stating this is the medical consensus. I have been very clear in providing references to support this.

The one thing I have most certainly not done is equivocate.

Now, about those sources to support your claim?

 

[Concrete]

No it's not. It's a view that accepts identity starts there and is mutable for the duration.



I tell you what - you progress beyond EYFS literacy and we'll have a chat about how we can explain something that is actually rather simple to someone who appears to be rather simple.

It has become apparent from your dialogue that you like to cover up the gaping flaws in your logic with flowery language and insults.

I assume you must be pretty young and will look back in years to come and cringe at your naivety and righteousness , don't worry we all went through that phase!

 

[Dr Jack]

In what way. I have been very clear in putting forward the view that life begins at conception. I have been very clear in stating this is the medical consensus. I have been very clear in providing references to support this.

The one thing I have most certainly not done is equivocate.

Your first paragraph is equivocation. You're equivocating between the biological concept of a life cycle and the social and judicial notion of human life.

The fact is that the majority of "lives" under your notion never, ever become human beings but are naturally disposed of, unremarked and unremembered, by the body.

 

[spudbynight]

Your first paragraph is equivocation. You're equivocating between the biological concept of a life cycle and the social and judicial notion of human life.

The fact is that the majority of "lives" under your notion never, ever become human beings but are naturally disposed of, unremarked and unremembered, by the body.

Human life begins at conception. What you are confusing with this is a concept of personhood.

I have not stated anything other than that human life begins at conception. From that moment a human life begins.

 

[Xordium]

Which is a view that identity is not determined at conception.

Identity is mutable throughout life so it's a moot point to the argument on that I agree with you. But that identity has an individual potential at that point which is what we are talking about here - potentiality.

I don't actually see any need for "identity" to enter the equation.

It's quite simple the need for and the action of abortion is an ethical one. A new unique and individual life is created at conception. Whether that life is be ended is a decision that needs to weigh all future consequences for all parties.

I am pro-abortion because I make an ethical decision not because I pretend that a living human is not being killed. They are.

I hope that clarifies that for you.

 

[shorttricky]

Well, why don't you cite some medical textbooks that support your opinion on when life begins.

I didn't give you an opinion on when "life" begins. I've said very clearly that the biological process of growing a human starts at conception, but I don't consider that that is "life" as we are discussing.

I'm sure I could go to some pro-abortion websites and find a whole bunch of scientists that will disagree with your pro-life websites - instead, how about some Christian sites that acknowledge that it's not that simple? I'm sure you won't click the links, but they do bible stuff and everything

http://www.anglicantheologicalreview.org/static/pdf/articles/disney-poston.pdf

http://www.christianethicstoday.com/cetart/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.main&ArtID=1087

 

[Xordium]

It has become apparent from your dialogue that you like to cover up the gaping flaws in your logic with flowery language and insults.

I assume you must be pretty young and will look back in years to come and cringe at your naivety and righteousness , don't worry we all went through that phase!

It's not my fault if you can't understand.

You assume wrong. If you want simple words explaining just ask.