Planned Parenthood caught selling body parts of aborted babies

[Sancocho]

Not seeing that in my post.

It's unfortunate the Republican party doesn't agree with you.


They already "get" to be irresponsible and children are often involved.

If you want to eliminate abortion as a "way out" for poor people that get pregnant irresponsibly, you need to support the resulting children and reduce the number of "unwanted" children in the first place.

Please post any references that support your claim that Republicans want to eliminate welfare so we can see if it is really necessary to kill children as you suggest.

 

[gcthomas]

Please post any references that support your claim that Republicans want to eliminate welfare so we can see if it is really necessary to kill children as you suggest.

Hmmm. Do republicans want to cut or increase welfare? Tricky one, that.

Question 2. Does Sancocho ever actually answer questions put to him or does he just endlessly avoid discussion by demanding "post any references"? Another tricky one there...

 

[jeffblue101]

Second PP video has been released

 

[jeffblue101]

"I want a Lamborghini" that statement says it all.

 

[Granite]

Please post your references "about conservatives screaming bloody murder" so we can weigh the advantages of killing children, since supposedly no one wants to feed them

Not what I said. Go back and actually read my post.

 

[jeffblue101]

CMP press release.

LOS ANGELES, July 21—A second undercover video shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Medical Directors’ Council President, Dr. Mary Gatter, haggling over payments for intact fetal specimens and offering to use a “less crunchy technique” to get more intact body parts.

It is similar to last week’s viral video showing PPFA Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola admitting to using partial-birth abortions to get intact parts and suggesting a price range of $30 to $100 per specimen.

Gatter is a senior official within Planned Parenthood and is President of the Medical Directors’ Council, the central committee of all Planned Parenthood affiliate medical directors.

Actors posing as buyers ask Gatter, “What would you expect for intact [fetal] tissue?”

“Well, why don’t you start by telling me what you’re used to paying!” Gatter replies.

Gatter continues: “You know, in negotiations whoever throws out the figure first is at a loss, right?” She explains, “I just don’t want to lowball,” before suggesting, “$75 a specimen.”

Gatter twice recites Planned Parenthood messaging on fetal tissue collection, “We’re not in it for the money,” and “The money is not the important thing,” but she immediately qualifies each statement with, respectively, “But what were you thinking of?” and, “But it has to be big enough that it’s worthwhile for me.”

Gatter also admits that in prior fetal tissue deals, Planned Parenthood received payment in spite of incurring no cost: “It was logistically very easy for us, we didn’t have to do anything. So there was compensation for this.” She accepts a higher price of $100 per specimen understanding that it will be only for high-quality fetal organs: “Now, this is for tissue that you actually take, not just tissue that someone volunteers and you can’t find anything, right?”

By the lunch’s end, Gatter suggests $100 per specimen is not enough and concludes, “Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it’s fine, if it’s still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.”

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).

Gatter also suggests modifying the abortion procedure to get more intact fetuses: “I wouldn’t object to asking Ian, who’s our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS [manual vacuum aspirator] at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he’s going to get an intact specimen.”

Gatter seems aware this violates rules governing tissue collection, but disregards them: “To me, that’s kind of a specious little argument.” Federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

The video, like last week’s featuring Dr. Nucatola, was produced by The Center for Medical Progress and is part of CMP’s nearly 3-year-long investigative journalism study, “Human Capital.”

CMP’s Project Lead David Daleiden notes, “Planned Parenthood’s top leadership admits they harvest aborted baby parts and receive payments for this. Planned Parenthood’s only denial is that they make money off of baby parts, but that is a desperate lie that becomes more and more untenable as CMP reveals Planned Parenthood’s business operations and statements that prove otherwise.”

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

What a gross, disgusting, abomination.
It is simple logic: The less that human life is valued the more society will erode.

 

[Sancocho]

Hmmm. Do republicans want to cut or increase welfare? Tricky one, that.

Question 2. Does Sancocho ever actually answer questions put to him or does he just endlessly avoid discussion by demanding "post any references"? Another tricky one there...

Cutting welfare and eliminating it are not the same, sorry.

Like I said most of your arguments are based on false presuppositions.

 

[jeffblue101]

full video

transcripts

 

[Sancocho]

Not what I said. Go back and actually read my post.

This is your post:

Nooooooo, not at all. But you guys do scream bloody murder (pun intended) whenever anyone speaks about combating poverty and actually using social programs to help those in need. As memory serves you whine and complain about "paying for someone else" and the like. Have a tendency to dismiss the poor as "free loaders" and "moochers" and what not. Always ready to trot out "welfare queens" and disparage those in poverty.

Well, congrats. When you get your way people suffer.

Let's put it this way: If your taxes being raised would guarantee a substantial reduction in abortion in the United States, would you support it?

Ok, I repeat please provide your references where conservatives "are screaming bloody murder" for having to help poor children so we can then decide if killing children is an appropriate solution.

 

[Granite]

This is your post:




Ok, I repeat please provide your references where conservatives "are screaming bloody murder" for having to help poor children so we can then decide if killing children is an appropriate solution.

Again: Not what I said.

 

[Sancocho]

Again: Not what I said.

Ok no problem. Please explain your position.

 

[Granite]

Ok no problem. Please explain your position.

It's right in my post. If you're not seeing what I wrote then I can't help ya. Long story short: Conservatives traditionally interpret any attempt whatsoever to help the disadvantaged as some manner of "handout" and seem to think that everyone in need can simply pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

 

[Sancocho]

It's right in my post. If you're not seeing what I wrote then I can't help ya. Long story short: Conservatives traditionally interpret any attempt whatsoever to help the disadvantaged as some manner of "handout" and seem to think that everyone in need can simply pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Ok, personal responsibility as a principal.

Nonetheless, wanting to promote personal responsibility and trying to reduce abuse of welfare is not the same as de-funding welfare. Therefore, this notion is dispelled and with it the supposition that children must be killed because no one want to feed them.

 

[Granite]

Ok, personal responsibility as a principal.

Nonetheless, wanting to promote personal responsibility and trying to reduce abuse of welfare is not the same as de-funding welfare. Therefore, this notion is dispelled and with it the supposition that children must be killed because no one want to feed them.

No one here has suggested that at all. So stop insisting that anyone has.

 

[Sancocho]

No one here has suggested that at all. So stop insisting that anyone has.

By eliminating all other solutions to the problem of unwanted children the choices are narrowed down "automatically" thus giving the appearance of only one solution possible which eliminates the need of guilt of having to state "children must be killed because no one wants to feed them".

BTW, what is your opinion regarding the killing of children in the womb? Is it justifiable or is it that we don't have any choice?

 

[Granite]

By eliminating all other solutions to the problem of unwanted children the choices are narrowed down "automatically" thus giving the appearance of only one solution possible which eliminates the need of guilt of having to state "children must be killed because no one wants to feed them".

You're not paying attention. At all.

 

[Sancocho]

You're not paying attention. At all.

Your statement about conservatives is clear.

The arguments for bolstering abortion aren't new fyi.

By the way, what is your stance regarding the killing of children in the womb?

 

[Granite]

Your statement about conservatives is clear.

Yes: Conservatives are, characteristically, flippant about the poor, the needy, and take a care less oh well attitude to these matters. That's not a good combination when you make birth control difficult to obtain. What do you think is going to happen?

 

[Sancocho]

Yes: Conservatives are, characteristically, flippant about the poor, the needy, and take a care less oh well attitude to these matters. That's not a good combination when you make birth control difficult to obtain. What do you think is going to happen?

Nice try. Wanting to limit abuses in the welfare system is not the same as eliminating it. Typical deflection.