Planned Parenthood videos

[StrangeSox]

And sounds like you have equally accepted the PP version. That's fine. But when they negotiate the pricing, that isn't 'recouping costs'.

 

What do you imagine hospitals do when negotiating with various groups over organ donations?

[CrimsonWeltall]

And sounds like you have equally accepted the PP version.

 

The PP version didn't deceptively leave out the facts about how tissue donation works, and that some payment is standard.

 

That's fine. But when they negotiate the pricing, that isn't 'recouping costs'.

 

How isn't it? She asks what he's used to paying. He won't say, so she throws out a ballpark number. She says she hasn't dealt with the compensation issue in a long time and would have to check with some clinics about what they usually look for to recoup costs.

[farmteam]

And sounds like you have equally accepted the PP version. That's fine. But when they negotiate the pricing, that isn't 'recouping costs'.

And how are the costs set? They're negotiated....

[caulfield12]

Unless there's proof that PP is "profiting greatly" (and that would have to be defined, which would be hard to do to anyone's satisfaction) from the tissue above and beyond the normal costs/fees that are passed on in similar situations, I'm not sure what the great stink is all about.

 

It's not like they are taking eggs away from supermodels/Mensa members without their consent/knowledge and selling them for $50-150,000 each on the black market.

Edited August 15, 2015 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Unless there's proof that PP is "profiting greatly" (and that would have to be defined, which would be hard to do to anyone's satisfaction) from the tissue above and beyond the normal costs/fees that are passed on in similar situations, I'm not sure what the great stink is all about.

[Bananarchy]

Unless there's proof that PP is "profiting greatly" (and that would have to be defined, which would be hard to do to anyone's satisfaction) from the tissue above and beyond the normal costs/fees that are passed on in similar situations, I'm not sure what the great stink is all about.

Conservative agenda. It doesn't matter what PP does, the religious right will vilify them.

 

"You must give birth to that child you have no means to raise"

"Okay, do I get help so that my kid can be healthy and happy?"

 

Republicans are pro birth. PP is pro happy children with happy lives.

[EvilMonkey]

Unless there's proof that PP is "profiting greatly" (and that would have to be defined, which would be hard to do to anyone's satisfaction) from the tissue above and beyond the normal costs/fees that are passed on in similar situations, I'm not sure what the great stink is all about.

If they are profiting AT ALL, it is illegal. They should know what thier costs are so they can recoup them, if that's all they are doing. But instead they are making money off it, which is illegal. Change the law if you don't like it, but it is illegal.

[Bananarchy]

If they are profiting AT ALL, it is illegal. They should know what thier costs are so they can recoup them, if that's all they are doing. But instead they are making money off it, which is illegal. Change the law if you don't like it, but it is illegal.

Have we established they are profiting? What evidence do we have other than you don't like them?

[Y2HH]

How so?

 

Ben Carson is outraged that Planned Parenthood would donate aborted fetal tissue to medical researchers.

Ben Carson formerly performed medical research involving donated aborted fetal tissue.

 

I think a lot of this is coming in light of the story that PP story and he says there is a difference in using tissue donated that wasn't "harvested" for that specific purpose vs tissue that exists and it's better to perform research it than to throw it away.

 

Also, he didn't conduct the entire study we are all talking about, many people were involved and I think he's being credited with things he didn't actually perform in that experiment simply because it helps paint the picture of him the media wanted. I believe his claim is that, just because my name is on a study doesn't mean I carried out every action taken during that study.

 

Also, I don't care about Ben Carson, but I believe this is why.

[Y2HH]

Have we established they are profiting? What evidence do we have other than you don't like them?

 

Isn't that what ongoing investigations will prove?

 

How come people can never (either side of this argument) let the facts rise to the surface BEFORE commenting as if they know for sure?

[Kyyle23]

Isn't that what ongoing investigations will prove?

 

How come people can never (either side of this argument) let the facts rise to the surface BEFORE commenting as if they know for sure?

 

so what you are saying is that we should delete this thread

[Y2HH]

so what you are saying is that we should delete this thread

 

I'd delete a lot of threads.

 

But to be fair to Soxtalk -- there happens to be a LOT of intelligent people that post here, whether I agree with them or not -- you should see some of these same topics being discussed on places like Facebook...it destroys my faith in humanity with the sheer stupidity of the opinions on either side, regardless of the argument taking place. And I'm not even sure that stupidity is a strong enough word to describe it.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Y2HH

[cabiness42]

Conservative agenda. It doesn't matter what PP does, the religious right will vilify them.

 

"You must give birth to that child you have no means to raise"

"Okay, do I get help so that my kid can be healthy and happy?"

 

Republicans are pro birth. PP is pro happy children with happy lives.

 

The people who devote the most time and money specifically to the pro-life issue wish very much that they weren't so tied to the religious right for that very reason. True, devoted pro-life people want there to be means to care for these children after they are born, whether that be through adoption, goods/services provided through donation, or, if necessary, public assistance.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I think a lot of this is coming in light of the story that PP story and he says there is a difference in using tissue donated that wasn't "harvested" for that specific purpose vs tissue that exists and it's better to perform research it than to throw it away.

 

There's no difference at all. It's the same source.

 

Also, he didn't conduct the entire study we are all talking about, many people were involved and I think he's being credited with things he didn't actually perform in that experiment simply because it helps paint the picture of him the media wanted. I believe his claim is that, just because my name is on a study doesn't mean I carried out every action taken during that study.

 

That statement is true, but if his name is on the paper, then he knew about the other parts of the study, including the use of aborted fetal tissue.

[StrangeSox]

Isn't that what ongoing investigations will prove?

 

How come people can never (either side of this argument) let the facts rise to the surface BEFORE commenting as if they know for sure?

 

Because this isn't a real "investigation" but some crappy 'stings' by an anti-abortion group who heavily edits their videos and lies.

[StrangeSox]

There's no difference at all. It's the same source.

 

Exactly. It's not like there's some fetal tissue factory, getting women pregnant and aborting the fetuses in order to harvest fetal tissue. It's all sourced from terminated pregnancies.

[Y2HH]

Exactly. It's not like there's some fetal tissue factory, getting women pregnant and aborting the fetuses in order to harvest fetal tissue. It's all sourced from terminated pregnancies.

 

I don't like the idea of speaking for Dr. Carson, but I think it's of his opinion that it's not the source that's the problem, it's the how and why it was acquired in the first place. So, from what I gather, he's against "harvesting" this type of tissue specifically for the sake of research...it's grey area, but I still get his point.

 

So, it's not the same unless you completely ignore his opinion on the subject. Maybe the way PP operated then vs now no longer jives with his morals...or maybe he's just another political hack that flip-flops when it's convenient.

 

In either case, I still see what hes trying to say.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

There's no difference at all. It's the same source.

 

 

 

That statement is true, but if his name is on the paper, then he knew about the other parts of the study, including the use of aborted fetal tissue.

 

I don't think the source matters in his explanation...it's how it was acquired by that source. One source can acquire tissue in a way he finds legit, and in a way he finds immoral...

 

I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

[StrangeSox]

I don't like the idea of speaking for Dr. Carson, but I think it's of his opinion that it's not the source that's the problem, it's the how and why it was acquired in the first place. So, from what I gather, he's against "harvesting" this type of tissue specifically for the sake of research...it's grey area, but I still get his point.

 

So, it's not the same unless you completely ignore his opinion on the subject.

 

His opinion doesn't make sense, that's the problem. Nobody is "harvesting" fetal tissue for research in that they're getting women pregnant and then terminating the pregnancies in order to collect fetal tissue (and I don't think Carson was trying to say that happens, either). But in order to get fetal tissue for research, it must be "harvested" during an abortion and processed specifically to be used for research. There isn't another way to get it. There isn't a grey area.

[Y2HH]

His opinion doesn't make sense, that's the problem. Nobody is "harvesting" fetal tissue for research in that they're getting women pregnant and then terminating the pregnancies in order to collect fetal tissue (and I don't think Carson was trying to say that happens, either). But in order to get fetal tissue for research, it must be "harvested" during an abortion and processed specifically to be used for research. There isn't another way to get it. There isn't a grey area.

 

Based in the context of this current PP "controversy", I think that's exactly what he's saying, and in that context, that's why what he's saying here makes sense to me...

Edited August 17, 2015 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Ok, but what he's trying to say is meaningless nonsense. Which is where this started.

[Y2HH]

Ok, but what he's trying to say is meaningless nonsense. Which is where this started.

 

Of course I agree when applied to the politics...he's just another political hack that will change his opinion based on any number of factors...I was simply pointing out that I understand his "explanation", not that I agree with it.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I don't think the source matters in his explanation...it's how it was acquired by that source. One source can acquire tissue in a way he finds legit, and in a way he finds immoral...

 

I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

 

...how was the tissue in Ben Carson's study acquired in any different way? It was tissue donated from an abortion.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Based in the context of this current PP "controversy", I think that's exactly what he's saying, and in that context, that's why what he's saying here makes sense to me...

 

Oh, ok. This is why I didn't understand what you were saying. I was giving Carson too much credit; I didn't realize his position was bats*** insane.

[Y2HH]

Oh, ok. This is why I didn't understand what you were saying. I was giving Carson too much credit; I didn't realize his position was bats*** insane.

 

I think it is...

 

Someone else here said it best, and highlights exactly why I'm for abortion...something along the lines of "banning abortion so people are forced to have kids they cannot/will not take care of"...because THAT'S a solution!

 

I'm not a huge fan of religion, in case that wasn't clear. Now, don't take that out of context, either...it doesn't mean I'm against those that believe in something/spirituality, I simply do not believe in the made up "written" religions that drive this sort of insanity have much use today.