• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PP and illegal sale of fetal body parts

sangha said:
Again, your insistence that it's a sale is not evidence that it is a sale. It's only evidence that you will believe whatever is convenient for you to believe.

And again, why won't you tell us what difference there is between the born and the unborn that makes it OK for parents to decide how the bodies of dead children are disposed of when the child has been born, but it's wrong for them to do the same if the child has not yet been born?

Is it because your claims that it's about the money, the market, the consent, etc are BS and your objections are really all about abortion (and have nothing to do with organ donation, money, consent, the law, etc) and you're just using this to attack Planned Parenthood who you don't like because they perform abortions?
Click to expand...

Your continued denial of the obvious is tiresome.

Have a good night.
 
eohrnberger said:
Your continued denial of the obvious is tiresome.

Have a good night.
Click to expand...

And your running away from defending your position is predictable. After all, there is no way you can explain why it's OK for parents to decide how the bodies of dead children are disposed of when the child has been born, but it's wrong for them to do the same if the child has not yet been born without admitting that there's a difference between the born and the unborn.
 
sangha said:
And your running away from defending your position is predictable. After all, there is no way you can explain why it's OK for parents to decide how the bodies of dead children are disposed of when the child has been born, but it's wrong for them to do the same if the child has not yet been born without admitting that there's a difference between the born and the unborn.
Click to expand...

Again, that's not my position, as you are mis-characterizing. The money needs to come out of these 'donations'.
 
eohrnberger said:
Again, that's not my position, as you are mis-characterizing. The money needs to come out of these 'donations'.
Click to expand...

No, you have been clear

You think it's OK for the parents of born children who have died to donate their remains, even though there's money involved

You think it's wrong for the parents of unborn children who have died to donate their remains because there's money involved

And you have refused to explain why there is a difference between the born and the unborn that justifies your position
 
sangha said:
No, you have been clear

You think it's OK for the parents of born children who have died to donate their remains, even though there's money involved

You think it's wrong for the parents of unborn children who have died to donate their remains because there's money involved

And you have refused to explain why there is a difference between the born and the unborn that justifies your position
Click to expand...

Well there you go again, projecting on someone else, putting words in their mouths. You really don't even need me for a debate. You can do it all by yourself. So please, go right on ahead.
 
eohrnberger said:
Well there you go again, projecting on someone else, putting words in their mouths. You really don't even need me for a debate. You can do it all by yourself. So please, go right on ahead.
Click to expand...

Your own words show that my last post was 100% accurate and is corroborated by the fact that you can't refute anything I said in that post.

In fact, you won't even try.
 
sangha said:
Again, your insistence that it's a sale is not evidence that it is a sale. It's only evidence that you will believe whatever is convenient for you to believe.

And again, why won't you tell us what difference there is between the born and the unborn that makes it OK for parents to decide how the bodies of dead children are disposed of when the child has been born, but it's wrong for them to do the same if the child has not yet been born?

Is it because your claims that it's about the money, the market, the consent, etc are BS and your objections are really all about abortion (and have nothing to do with organ donation, money, consent, the law, etc) and you're just using this to attack Planned Parenthood who you don't like because they perform abortions?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could explain your take on what "sale", or "selling" means, because it flies in the face of accepted definition.

sell
/sel/

verb

gerund or present participle: selling

1. give or hand over (something) in exchange for money.
"they had sold the car"

synonyms: put up for sale, offer for sale, put on sale, dispose of, vend, auction (off); More
 
Summerwind said:
Illegal? Really? Based on what are they illegal? I'm not watching the video as I don't have the time or MBs to waste, but I surely cannot imagine that the director of PP is discussing illegal sales of biomedical parts on camera.
Click to expand...

Based on the camera angle, it looks as if she did not know that a camera was a hidden camera. In am pretty certain that she did not know.
 
This whole case is intriguing to say the least. The videos seem to clearly show a discussion where the woman from PP discusses both the altering of the abortion procedure to increase successful harvest of specific tissue and the subsequent sale of said 'tissue'(filling of the orders for the day). Both of which are illegal... but the whole tape is not available. We only get tid-bits that may or may not be out of context. PP gets 538 million annually if Im not mistaken, and they perform between a quarter and a third of U.S. abortions. We'll see how it plays out.
 
nota bene said:
I was e-mailed this morning a link to a YouTube video in which Planned Parenthood Federation Senior Director of Medical Services Deborah Nucatola discusses sales of fetal body parts. Livers are always a hot commodity, and there are ways to improve performance so as to acquire more valuable body parts. I hope that we can all agree, just this once, that what's going on here is appalling. Quoting Connie Chung here, "Big money is being made."

Click to expand...


If PP were caught selling illegal puppy parts they would have been shut down yesterday.
 
Jerry said:
If PP were caught selling illegal puppy parts they would have been shut down yesterday.
Click to expand...
Yup. That's the video I was referring to in my last post to. Sounds bad in the video. I'm not sure if we saw the entire unedited version if it would help their case or not.
 
sangha said:
You're not making any sense and you're incoherent.

You say that a donation implies there's a profit (as if my donation to the Salvation Army means SA profited) and then start rambling about chocolate and drugs as if people are donating chocolate and drugs.

Your post is hilarious
Click to expand...

As always, you simply cannot read the words and accept the meaning.

You said there is no profit from the donation of fetal tissue. I said donation pretty much implies as much. Then you disagree with what you said. Maybe it's time to re-medicate?

I then start talking about another area of trade altogether: the leaves and beans from cocoa plants. Since the dots are apparently not visible to you, here it is:

Both the Chocolate and the Cocaine businesses are worth a whole bunch of money.

The folks that actually provide the raw materials don't see much of that at all. This is parallel to PP in that they start the ball rolling by providing the body parts that are used in the trade of Fetal tissue. They claim they get very little money. I am not going to spend the time researching this, but I would bet that they are getting a fair "donation" from the folks who are conducting research using the donated parts. Not a direct business relationship. More like the Hilary Clinton SOS deals that harvested millions for her Foundation after she made contact as the SOS..

Were you able to stick with that?

PP has a budget of about 1.25 Billion and gets about a half billion from the USA taxpayers. The other .75 billion has to come from somewhere. Could just be folks who feel they are doing good work.
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
Is interaction a necessary part of being a human?
Click to expand...

Interaction is a behavior. It usually occurs among all species. Not all, but most.

The movement of a developing fetus...isn't a purposely contrived act to elicit a reciprocal response. Interaction is a reciprocal action. However, "movement" is a necessary part of development.

Interaction is an inevitable behavior of being human outside of the womb. As a part of human interaction comes a fundamental process of socialization that continues through out one's life. Even seriously debilitated individuals can interact with their environment (although it may be limited).

If humans don't interact - they don't usually thrive very well. And that's because human share labor in order to co-exist. Humans devise instruments such as laws to maintain some type of order. A lot of people criminally interact...as you well know. Sex is a form interacting. We can also say that reproduction is a result of interacting.

Socialization is a necessary part of being a part of any life form.

However, we all know that based on cultural difference, etc...socialization results will vary from person to person. In other words, there's no certainty that two people experiencing the same socialization processes will produce identical results.

Then there's something called "Internalization". Internalization means taking social norms, roles, and values into one's own mind. Society was seen as the primary factor responsible for how individuals learned to think and behave. If people failed to play their expected roles or behaved strangely, the those people referred to be "unsocialized" or more often than that they're called "uncivilized".. The trouble is, they might very well know what was expected but simply be rejecting it.

A developing zygote, embryo, and fetus...cannot interact. Interaction is reciprocal action. These developing stages can't engage in reciprocal actions. The external environment to any developing stage of human life - can't reciprocally act with something that is not participating among born persons. Very few individuals are aware of an embryo even existing. And it's not evident that the fetus exists until somewhere around 16 weeks...and even then most might night notice.

So it's really safe to say...no stage of a developing human life can be involved in interaction (a reciprocal behavior), socialization, and internalization processes.

There is just a hell of more than being a human life than just existing. Unborn developing stages of human life...exists. But they can't yet do all of the things that merit giving them the title of HUMAN BEING!
 
Removable Mind said:
Interaction is a behavior. It usually occurs among all species. Not all, but most.

The movement of a developing fetus...isn't a purposely contrived act to elicit a reciprocal response. Interaction is a reciprocal action. However, "movement" is a necessary part of development.

Interaction is an inevitable behavior of being human outside of the womb. As a part of human interaction comes a fundamental process of socialization that continues through out one's life. Even seriously debilitated individuals can interact with their environment (although it may be limited).

If humans don't interact - they don't usually thrive very well. And that's because human share labor in order to co-exist. Humans devise instruments such as laws to maintain some type of order. A lot of people criminally interact...as you well know. Sex is a form interacting. We can also say that reproduction is a result of interacting.

Socialization is a necessary part of being a part of any life form.

However, we all know that based on cultural difference, etc...socialization results will vary from person to person. In other words, there's no certainty that two people experiencing the same socialization processes will produce identical results.

Then there's something called "Internalization". Internalization means taking social norms, roles, and values into one's own mind. Society was seen as the primary factor responsible for how individuals learned to think and behave. If people failed to play their expected roles or behaved strangely, the those people referred to be "unsocialized" or more often than that they're called "uncivilized".. The trouble is, they might very well know what was expected but simply be rejecting it.

A developing zygote, embryo, and fetus...cannot interact. Interaction is reciprocal action. These developing stages can't engage in reciprocal actions. The external environment to any developing stage of human life - can't reciprocally act with something that is not participating among born persons. Very few individuals are aware of an embryo even existing. And it's not evident that the fetus exists until somewhere around 16 weeks...and even then most might night notice.

So it's really safe to say...no stage of a developing human life can be involved in interaction (a reciprocal behavior), socialization, and internalization processes.

There is just a hell of more than being a human life than just existing. Unborn developing stages of human life...exists. But they can't yet do all of the things that merit giving them the title of HUMAN BEING!
Click to expand...




So, using your defintition, a baby in the womb is alive and does interact:

Baby's Senses in the Womb | Fetal Development | Pregnancy.org

<snip>
by Anai Rhoads



sharing headset with babe in wombYour baby can see, hear, taste and feel the intimate world you have provided around him or her. Playing soothing music for your baby helps release endorphins that help baby relax.

[COLOR=""]In only the third month of your baby's life in the womb, his or her hearing is starting to develop fully.[/COLOR] Around mid-term, you will begin to feel your baby's reaction to certain noises. You feel a kick or a poke when daddy is around, telling you he or she recognises that particular voice.

Loud noises can startle baby, so speak softly. This will help baby feel secure and safe in the environment your womb has created specifically for your baby's well being. Amniotic fluid muffles sound, so do not be concerned if you are put in a position where you are upset or shouting. Some researchers claim that normal emotions the mother experiences in day-to-day life, can help the unborn baby to adapt once born.

As far as light -- yes, your baby can see in the womb. Just as when we lie out in the sunlight, and close our eyes. You baby actually sees shades of red and orange in bright light. Around the fourth month, your baby may begin reacting to the light, by turning away or towards it.
<snip>

10 ways to bond with your baby bump - BabyCentre

Can my baby hear before she's born? - Parents.com

The links for this go on and on.

Unborn babies can and do react to things outside the womb.

I react to thunder outside my house by checking the weather reports. Just because YOU can't see or understand the reaction does not mean there is not a reaction.

By your definition, a baby in the womb is alive.
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
So, using your defintition, a baby in the womb is alive and does interact:

Baby's Senses in the Womb | Fetal Development | Pregnancy.org

<snip>
by Anai Rhoads



sharing headset with babe in wombYour baby can see, hear, taste and feel the intimate world you have provided around him or her. Playing soothing music for your baby helps release endorphins that help baby relax.

[COLOR=""]In only the third month of your baby's life in the womb, his or her hearing is starting to develop fully.[/COLOR] Around mid-term, you will begin to feel your baby's reaction to certain noises. You feel a kick or a poke when daddy is around, telling you he or she recognises that particular voice.

Loud noises can startle baby, so speak softly. This will help baby feel secure and safe in the environment your womb has created specifically for your baby's well being. Amniotic fluid muffles sound, so do not be concerned if you are put in a position where you are upset or shouting. Some researchers claim that normal emotions the mother experiences in day-to-day life, can help the unborn baby to adapt once born.

As far as light -- yes, your baby can see in the womb. Just as when we lie out in the sunlight, and close our eyes. You baby actually sees shades of red and orange in bright light. Around the fourth month, your baby may begin reacting to the light, by turning away or towards it.
<snip>

10 ways to bond with your baby bump - BabyCentre

Can my baby hear before she's born? - Parents.com

The links for this go on and on.

Unborn babies can and do react to things outside the womb.

I react to thunder outside my house by checking the weather reports. Just because YOU can't see or understand the reaction does not mean there is not a reaction.

By your definition, a baby in the womb is alive.
Click to expand...

Gezzzzzzzzzzzus, Code....nobody has said that a zygote, embryo, or fetus isn't alive in the womb. It can't develop if it's not alive.

I realize that you want embryos and early stage fetuses to be way more personified. But the most important thing you need to realize is that 95% percent plus abortions occur at the embryo and early fetus stages (12 weeks and under). Actually of the 95 percent aborted - 60 percent of those are 10 weeks and under. These stages of development are physically and mentally INCAPABLE of feeling anything, seeing, hearing, smelling, or being conscious/self-ware. They don't have anywhere close to mature organs, central nerve systems...or brains.

You can believe that interacting is the same as developing all you want...but it simply isn't a reality. Responding to some types of stimulus from outside the womb might begin to occur after viability, but more than likely at an advanced stage. And I doubt seriously if a woman had bed rest during the entire pregnant that the lack of any external stimulus would impact the fetus at all.
 
Removable Mind said:
Gezzzzzzzzzzzus, Code....nobody has said that a zygote, embryo, or fetus isn't alive in the womb. It can't develop if it's not alive.

I realize that you want embryos and early stage fetuses to be way more personified. But the most important thing you need to realize is that 95% percent plus abortions occur at the embryo and early fetus stages (12 weeks and under). Actually of the 95 percent aborted - 60 percent of those are 10 weeks and under. These stages of development are physically and mentally INCAPABLE of feeling anything, seeing, hearing, smelling, or being conscious/self-ware. They don't have anywhere close to mature organs, central nerve systems...or brains.

You can believe that interacting is the same as developing all you want...but it simply isn't a reality. Responding to some types of stimulus from outside the womb might begin to occur after viability, but more than likely at an advanced stage. And I doubt seriously if a woman had bed rest during the entire pregnant that the lack of any external stimulus would impact the fetus at all.
Click to expand...



You set the parameters.

I only showed that babies in the womb satisfy those parameters.

Incidentally, you sound like you are trying to convince me to support abortion rights. I already do.

I also support the practice of being aware of what we are doing and allowing to be done.
 
code1211 said:
You set the parameters.

I only showed that babies in the womb satisfy those parameters.

Incidentally, you sound like you are trying to convince me to support abortion rights. I already do.

I also support the practice of being aware of what we are doing and allowing to be done.
Click to expand...

This isn't about abortion rights...this is about "INTERACTION".

But I didn't set any parameters.

In another post...I spoke about "movement is necessary for development". You are the one who ask me if interaction was necessary for human life.

I gave you an answer. There is a genuine set of biological events that happen during development of embryos and early stage fetuses, but INTERACTION ISN'T ONE OF THEM.

What you wanted me to say or how you wanted me to respond to your post...wasn't really about "interaction" was it? I sense you were trying to bait me with this "Seeeeeeeee, the baby in the womb is alive" - gotcha! kind of comment.

I'll agree that there is a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus in the womb at various stages. I'll never agree that there is "baby in the womb". Once born...alive...then we'll see a baby....
 
Removable Mind said:
This isn't about abortion rights...this is about "INTERACTION".

But I didn't set any parameters.

In another post...I spoke about "movement is necessary for development". You are the one who ask me if interaction was necessary for human life.

I gave you an answer. There is a genuine set of biological events that happen during development of embryos and early stage fetuses, but INTERACTION ISN'T ONE OF THEM.

What you wanted me to say or how you wanted me to respond to your post...wasn't really about "interaction" was it? I sense you were trying to bait me with this "Seeeeeeeee, the baby in the womb is alive" - gotcha! kind of comment.

I'll agree that there is a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus in the womb at various stages. I'll never agree that there is "baby in the womb". Once born...alive...then we'll see a baby....
Click to expand...




This thread is about the practice of harvesting body parts from aborted "whatever you care to call them's". Obviously, this practice does not occur with the zygote or first week fetus.

From your post #799:

"Then I would argue that you would be wrong. It has the absolute ability to interact. Not potentially interact like a fetus. A newborn is exposed to society and begins to be socialized from the moment it's born."

YOU are the person that introduced the idea that a new born has the ability to interact and that the baby in the womb does not. It is the ability to interact that you claimed was the test of whether or not something is or is not alive.

Obviously, from the links and virtually any expert you care to cite, the unborn has begun to be socialized before birth.
 
code1211 said:
This thread is about the practice of harvesting body parts from aborted "whatever you care to call them's". Obviously, this practice does not occur with the zygote or first week fetus.

From your post #799:

"Then I would argue that you would be wrong. It has the absolute ability to interact. Not potentially interact like a fetus. A newborn is exposed to society and begins to be socialized from the moment it's born."

YOU are the person that introduced the idea that a new born has the ability to interact and that the baby in the womb does not. It is the ability to interact that you claimed was the test of whether or not something is or is not alive.

Obviously, from the links and virtually any expert you care to cite, the unborn has begun to be socialized before birth.
Click to expand...

It clearly does...while a zygote, embryo, and fetus does. not.....
 
code1211 said:
This thread is about the practice of harvesting body parts from aborted "whatever you care to call them's". Obviously, this practice does not occur with the zygote or first week fetus.

From your post #799:

"Then I would argue that you would be wrong. It has the absolute ability to interact. Not potentially interact like a fetus. A newborn is exposed to society and begins to be socialized from the moment it's born."

YOU are the person that introduced the idea that a new born has the ability to interact and that the baby in the womb does not. It is the ability to interact that you claimed was the test of whether or not something is or is not alive.

Obviously, from the links and virtually any expert you care to cite, the unborn has begun to be socialized before birth.
Click to expand...

Oh...and you are mistaken about intent behind my comments regarding interaction - it's not a test. It's a fact of life. Again, zygotes, embryos, and early stage fetuses...is impossible to interact. Since 95 percent of abortions occur 12 weeks and under...there's no physical or mental way that stage can interact.
 
Last edited:
Removable Mind said:
It clearly does...while a zygote, embryo, and fetus does. not.....
Click to expand...

Not actually.

Those life forms, developmentally moving toward becoming a functioning human, you know, growing like the rest of us, do not socialize on a level that we understand.

Phillip Slater wrote a book titled "The Toilet Assumption" which was assigned reading in one of the socialization classes required when I was in school. The thrust of the book was that we assume that if we don't see it, it doesn't exist.

The Cuyahoga River in flames was proof to the contrary.

Merely flushing the toilet does not always make stuff just disappear. It seems to always come back where and when we least expect it.
 
Removable Mind said:
Oh...and you are mistaken about intent behind my comments regarding interaction - it's not a test. It's a fact of life. Again, zygotes, embryos, and early stage fetuses...is impossible to interact. Since 95 percent of abortions occur 12 weeks and under...there's no physical or mental way that stage can interact.
Click to expand...

I understand your assertion.

However, it may be us, the post womb humans, who are simply incapable of understanding.
 
code1211 said:
I understand your assertion.

However, it may be us, the post womb humans, who are simply incapable of understanding.
Click to expand...

No, you don't understand the assertion

Understanding and being sentient isn't the same thing.

There is no expert anywhere that can claim that a significantly physically and mentally undeveloped embryo and early stage fetus has the ability to interact with the social environment. Interacting is a reciprocal "behavior"...
 
code1211 said:
Not actually.

Those life forms, developmentally moving toward becoming a functioning human, you know, growing like the rest of us, do not socialize on a level that we understand.

Phillip Slater wrote a book titled "The Toilet Assumption" which was assigned reading in one of the socialization classes required when I was in school. The thrust of the book was that we assume that if we don't see it, it doesn't exist.

The Cuyahoga River in flames was proof to the contrary.

Merely flushing the toilet does not always make stuff just disappear. It seems to always come back where and when we least expect it.
Click to expand...

The science behind human development is well proven and not generally in dispute by either side. However science does not apply value, it is objective.

People apply value and that is subjective. So the decision on rights and laws for the unborn must be based on some subjective valuation.

Referring to your toilet and river example, can you explain to me the negative effects of abortion on society?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom