Does Cecil the lion trump Planned Parenthood selling aborted tissue stories???

[TyroneSlothrop]

This is what happens as a result of fetal tissue research
How exactly fetal tissue is used for medicine - CNN.com
(CNN)Fetal tissue has been used since the 1930s for vaccine development, and more recently to help advance stem cell research and treatments for degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's disease. Researchers typically take tissue samples from a fetus that has been aborted (under conditions permitted by law) and grow cells from the tissue in Petri dishes.

Many of the uses of fetal tissue — and much of the debate — are not new. "It's just that the public is finding out about it," said Insoo Hyun, associate professor of bioethics at Case Western Reserve University.

In addition, the ways that fetal tissue are allowed to be obtained and used are not new either, Hyun said. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released guidelines on the topic in the 1990s.

The federal regulations state that women must decide to have an abortion before clinicians can ask whether they would like to donate fetal tissue. One concern is that women would have more pregnancies or abortions because theywant to donate fetal tissue. In addition, clinicians performing the abortions cannot receive payment from researchers who will receive fetal materials, except for reimbursement for costs such as shipping.

 

[Lakhota]

Does cecil the lion trump "doctored" videos? Yes, he does!

 

[WinterBorn]

Sounds like some people on this board really respect the efficiency of Planned Parenthood's efforts to cleanse the human race.

No, not at all. But I do respect your knack for hyperbole and bullshit.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Slaughtering Zimbabwe’s most beloved lion apparently wasn’t enough for Minnesota dentist Dr. Walter Palmer, who wanted to kill “a very large elephant” just after taking down Cecil, his hunting guide said Thursday.

“I told him I would not be able to find one so big, so the client left the next day,” Theo Bronkhorst, founder of Bushman Safaris Zimbabwe, told The Telegraph.

Speaking for the first time since word of Cecil’s illegal slaughter garnered international headlines, Bronkhorst insisted they were never meant to hunt on the farm where the bloodthirsty 55-year-old dentist killed Cecil with a crossbow after luring him out of his Hwange National Park sanctuary. Lion-killing dentist planned to take down elephant next - MarketWatch

 

[sakinago]

Then why involve yourself in the conversation? You should know where this conversation logically ends up. and I know it ends up at a double think dilemma, unless you are consistent with your beliefs. In that case Germany was justifiable to euthanize their mentally challenged as social fiscal burdens

The fact that others expect the topic to change does not effect my discussion. The topic is about the "selling" aborted tissues v. Cecil the lion being killed. I have no problem discussing the details of either. But the topic need not be about abortion.

And since the point of the thread is to compare the media and public reaction to the two stories, making it about abortion is silly. Can you imagine a headline "Planned Parenthood Performs Abortions"?

But you commented about not letting valuable tissue go to waste, which leads into whether or not it's ethical to end the life of a human who is unable to make that decision. And then you circled back to saying it's not relevant. I missing where it lost relevance

I have not discussed abortion. What I HAVE discussed is what should be done with the fetal remains. As long as abortions are being performed legally, it seems criminal to throw valuable organs and tissues into an incinerator. That is the sum total of my point.

All of my discussion starts after the abortion has been performed.

Kind of cart in front of the horse since the ethics of it should be the bigger part. Kind of like saying forget about the robbing of the bank, now what should we do with this money

lol

You are adamant about making this all about abortion. I am not. I am discussing the topic. If we discuss organ donation of adults, I see not point in discussing how they died.

I'll tell you why, let's say a homeless person died on the streets, how they died is irrelevant but the guy is a John Doe, no info on or about them, is it ok to harvest or use their organs without informed consent?

 

[sakinago]

The killing of animals for trophy is barbaric. The killing of human beings to sell their body parts is even more barbaric.

That is simply not happening. That is in fact against the law. You have taken heavily edited videos and assume that is reality...that is the method that was used to smear Shirley Sherrod and ACORN.
Timeline of Breitbart's Sherrod smear | Research | Media ...

The full videos are posted, please watch and tell me what is taken out of context, and highly edited?

 

[WinterBorn]

The fact that others expect the topic to change does not effect my discussion. The topic is about the "selling" aborted tissues v. Cecil the lion being killed. I have no problem discussing the details of either. But the topic need not be about abortion.

And since the point of the thread is to compare the media and public reaction to the two stories, making it about abortion is silly. Can you imagine a headline "Planned Parenthood Performs Abortions"?

But you commented about not letting valuable tissue go to waste, which leads into whether or not it's ethical to end the life of a human who is unable to make that decision. And then you circled back to saying it's not relevant. I missing where it lost relevance

I have not discussed abortion. What I HAVE discussed is what should be done with the fetal remains. As long as abortions are being performed legally, it seems criminal to throw valuable organs and tissues into an incinerator. That is the sum total of my point.

All of my discussion starts after the abortion has been performed.

Kind of cart in front of the horse since the ethics of it should be the bigger part. Kind of like saying forget about the robbing of the bank, now what should we do with this money

lol

You are adamant about making this all about abortion. I am not. I am discussing the topic. If we discuss organ donation of adults, I see not point in discussing how they died.

I'll tell you why, let's say a homeless person died on the streets, how they died is irrelevant but the guy is a John Doe, no info on or about them, is it ok to harvest or use their organs without informed consent?

No. But let me pose a more relevant question. A 10 year old boy is killed in a car accident. Who do the doctors ask about organ donation? The parents.

 

[Katzndogz]

The fact that others expect the topic to change does not effect my discussion. The topic is about the "selling" aborted tissues v. Cecil the lion being killed. I have no problem discussing the details of either. But the topic need not be about abortion.

And since the point of the thread is to compare the media and public reaction to the two stories, making it about abortion is silly. Can you imagine a headline "Planned Parenthood Performs Abortions"?

But you commented about not letting valuable tissue go to waste, which leads into whether or not it's ethical to end the life of a human who is unable to make that decision. And then you circled back to saying it's not relevant. I missing where it lost relevance

I have not discussed abortion. What I HAVE discussed is what should be done with the fetal remains. As long as abortions are being performed legally, it seems criminal to throw valuable organs and tissues into an incinerator. That is the sum total of my point.

All of my discussion starts after the abortion has been performed.

Kind of cart in front of the horse since the ethics of it should be the bigger part. Kind of like saying forget about the robbing of the bank, now what should we do with this money

lol

You are adamant about making this all about abortion. I am not. I am discussing the topic. If we discuss organ donation of adults, I see not point in discussing how they died.

I'll tell you why, let's say a homeless person died on the streets, how they died is irrelevant but the guy is a John Doe, no info on or about them, is it ok to harvest or use their organs without informed consent?

Why does he have to be dead? These babies were healthy before they were killed for their parts.

 

[sakinago]

But you commented about not letting valuable tissue go to waste, which leads into whether or not it's ethical to end the life of a human who is unable to make that decision. And then you circled back to saying it's not relevant. I missing where it lost relevance

I have not discussed abortion. What I HAVE discussed is what should be done with the fetal remains. As long as abortions are being performed legally, it seems criminal to throw valuable organs and tissues into an incinerator. That is the sum total of my point.

All of my discussion starts after the abortion has been performed.

Kind of cart in front of the horse since the ethics of it should be the bigger part. Kind of like saying forget about the robbing of the bank, now what should we do with this money

lol

You are adamant about making this all about abortion. I am not. I am discussing the topic. If we discuss organ donation of adults, I see not point in discussing how they died.

I'll tell you why, let's say a homeless person died on the streets, how they died is irrelevant but the guy is a John Doe, no info on or about them, is it ok to harvest or use their organs without informed consent?

No. But let me pose a more relevant question. A 10 year old boy is killed in a car accident. Who do the doctors ask about organ donation? The parents.

What was the cause of the child's death? Not abortion. And you were supposed to say yes to be consistent. Why waste those valuable organs in the incinerator?

 

[WinterBorn]

But you commented about not letting valuable tissue go to waste, which leads into whether or not it's ethical to end the life of a human who is unable to make that decision. And then you circled back to saying it's not relevant. I missing where it lost relevance

I have not discussed abortion. What I HAVE discussed is what should be done with the fetal remains. As long as abortions are being performed legally, it seems criminal to throw valuable organs and tissues into an incinerator. That is the sum total of my point.

All of my discussion starts after the abortion has been performed.

Kind of cart in front of the horse since the ethics of it should be the bigger part. Kind of like saying forget about the robbing of the bank, now what should we do with this money

lol

You are adamant about making this all about abortion. I am not. I am discussing the topic. If we discuss organ donation of adults, I see not point in discussing how they died.

I'll tell you why, let's say a homeless person died on the streets, how they died is irrelevant but the guy is a John Doe, no info on or about them, is it ok to harvest or use their organs without informed consent?

Why does he have to be dead? These babies were healthy before they were killed for their parts.

The lie is subtle, but still a lie. "These babies were healthy before they were killed for their parts" is a lie.

They were not killed FOR their body parts. They were aborted and the body parts were salvaged. The difference is the intent and who made the decision to end the pregnancy.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have not discussed abortion. What I HAVE discussed is what should be done with the fetal remains. As long as abortions are being performed legally, it seems criminal to throw valuable organs and tissues into an incinerator. That is the sum total of my point.

All of my discussion starts after the abortion has been performed.

Kind of cart in front of the horse since the ethics of it should be the bigger part. Kind of like saying forget about the robbing of the bank, now what should we do with this money

lol

You are adamant about making this all about abortion. I am not. I am discussing the topic. If we discuss organ donation of adults, I see not point in discussing how they died.

I'll tell you why, let's say a homeless person died on the streets, how they died is irrelevant but the guy is a John Doe, no info on or about them, is it ok to harvest or use their organs without informed consent?

No. But let me pose a more relevant question. A 10 year old boy is killed in a car accident. Who do the doctors ask about organ donation? The parents.

What was the cause of the child's death? Not abortion. And you were supposed to say yes to be consistent. Why waste those valuable organs in the incinerator?

Cause of death is irrelevant. But if the child is underage, the parent or parents decide whether his body is donated.

 

[sakinago]

Kind of cart in front of the horse since the ethics of it should be the bigger part. Kind of like saying forget about the robbing of the bank, now what should we do with this money

lol

You are adamant about making this all about abortion. I am not. I am discussing the topic. If we discuss organ donation of adults, I see not point in discussing how they died.

I'll tell you why, let's say a homeless person died on the streets, how they died is irrelevant but the guy is a John Doe, no info on or about them, is it ok to harvest or use their organs without informed consent?

No. But let me pose a more relevant question. A 10 year old boy is killed in a car accident. Who do the doctors ask about organ donation? The parents.

What was the cause of the child's death? Not abortion. And you were supposed to say yes to be consistent. Why waste those valuable organs in the incinerator?

Cause of death is irrelevant. But if the child is underage, the parent or parents decide whether his body is donated.

Only because we want to put fiscal reason ahed of life, and say things like death is irrelevant to avoid the tough questions. Same thing Germany did, and they were normal civilized people just like us who started ignoring those questions

 

[sakinago]

Kind of cart in front of the horse since the ethics of it should be the bigger part. Kind of like saying forget about the robbing of the bank, now what should we do with this money

lol

You are adamant about making this all about abortion. I am not. I am discussing the topic. If we discuss organ donation of adults, I see not point in discussing how they died.

I'll tell you why, let's say a homeless person died on the streets, how they died is irrelevant but the guy is a John Doe, no info on or about them, is it ok to harvest or use their organs without informed consent?

No. But let me pose a more relevant question. A 10 year old boy is killed in a car accident. Who do the doctors ask about organ donation? The parents.

What was the cause of the child's death? Not abortion. And you were supposed to say yes to be consistent. Why waste those valuable organs in the incinerator?

Cause of death is irrelevant. But if the child is underage, the parent or parents decide whether his body is donated.

But I must commend you for at least recognizing what an evil bitch Sanger was, can't believe she's a candidate to replace Hamilton on our money... And we still name roads after her

 

[WinterBorn]

lol

You are adamant about making this all about abortion. I am not. I am discussing the topic. If we discuss organ donation of adults, I see not point in discussing how they died.

I'll tell you why, let's say a homeless person died on the streets, how they died is irrelevant but the guy is a John Doe, no info on or about them, is it ok to harvest or use their organs without informed consent?

No. But let me pose a more relevant question. A 10 year old boy is killed in a car accident. Who do the doctors ask about organ donation? The parents.

What was the cause of the child's death? Not abortion. And you were supposed to say yes to be consistent. Why waste those valuable organs in the incinerator?

Cause of death is irrelevant. But if the child is underage, the parent or parents decide whether his body is donated.

Only because we want to put fiscal reason ahed of life, and say things like death is irrelevant to avoid the tough questions. Same thing Germany did, and they were normal civilized people just like us who started ignoring those questions

You are moving the goalposts.

You posted asking is it ok to use organs without informed consent, and have mentioned that there is no consent from the fetus. I posted about the 10 year old boy to illustrate that parents make those decisions for their children in other situations. So, in that context, cause of death is irrelevant.

 

[sakinago]

I'll tell you why, let's say a homeless person died on the streets, how they died is irrelevant but the guy is a John Doe, no info on or about them, is it ok to harvest or use their organs without informed consent?

No. But let me pose a more relevant question. A 10 year old boy is killed in a car accident. Who do the doctors ask about organ donation? The parents.

What was the cause of the child's death? Not abortion. And you were supposed to say yes to be consistent. Why waste those valuable organs in the incinerator?

Cause of death is irrelevant. But if the child is underage, the parent or parents decide whether his body is donated.

Only because we want to put fiscal reason ahed of life, and say things like death is irrelevant to avoid the tough questions. Same thing Germany did, and they were normal civilized people just like us who started ignoring those questions

You are moving the goalposts.

You posted asking is it ok to use organs without informed consent, and have mentioned that there is no consent from the fetus. I posted about the 10 year old boy to illustrate that parents make those decisions for their children in other situations. So, in that context, cause of death is irrelevant.

And your trying to keep this story in the very narrow context of well it's already dead. And I originally said I agree with you about not wasting those organs if that is how you feel about abortion. But we are putting fiscal reasons in front of life, which is wrong. And yes parents can make that choice...when they are not the ones killing them.

 

[WinterBorn]

No. But let me pose a more relevant question. A 10 year old boy is killed in a car accident. Who do the doctors ask about organ donation? The parents.

What was the cause of the child's death? Not abortion. And you were supposed to say yes to be consistent. Why waste those valuable organs in the incinerator?

Cause of death is irrelevant. But if the child is underage, the parent or parents decide whether his body is donated.

Only because we want to put fiscal reason ahed of life, and say things like death is irrelevant to avoid the tough questions. Same thing Germany did, and they were normal civilized people just like us who started ignoring those questions

You are moving the goalposts.

You posted asking is it ok to use organs without informed consent, and have mentioned that there is no consent from the fetus. I posted about the 10 year old boy to illustrate that parents make those decisions for their children in other situations. So, in that context, cause of death is irrelevant.

And your trying to keep this story in the very narrow context of well it's already dead. And I originally said I agree with you about not wasting those organs if that is how you feel about abortion. But we are putting fiscal reasons in front of life, which is wrong. And yes parents can make that choice...when they are not the ones killing them.

Fiscal reasons in front of life? How so?

 

[sakinago]

What was the cause of the child's death? Not abortion. And you were supposed to say yes to be consistent. Why waste those valuable organs in the incinerator?

Cause of death is irrelevant. But if the child is underage, the parent or parents decide whether his body is donated.

Only because we want to put fiscal reason ahed of life, and say things like death is irrelevant to avoid the tough questions. Same thing Germany did, and they were normal civilized people just like us who started ignoring those questions

You are moving the goalposts.

You posted asking is it ok to use organs without informed consent, and have mentioned that there is no consent from the fetus. I posted about the 10 year old boy to illustrate that parents make those decisions for their children in other situations. So, in that context, cause of death is irrelevant.

And your trying to keep this story in the very narrow context of well it's already dead. And I originally said I agree with you about not wasting those organs if that is how you feel about abortion. But we are putting fiscal reasons in front of life, which is wrong. And yes parents can make that choice...when they are not the ones killing them.

Fiscal reasons in front of life? How so?

We can't afford this baby at this time, we can't afford these babies as a society. I don't want this baby to stop me from going to college (to train and find a career). Babies are too time consuming, I don't want it to mess with my career. The fiscal aspect almost always has a major play in the decision

 

[WinterBorn]

Cause of death is irrelevant. But if the child is underage, the parent or parents decide whether his body is donated.

Only because we want to put fiscal reason ahed of life, and say things like death is irrelevant to avoid the tough questions. Same thing Germany did, and they were normal civilized people just like us who started ignoring those questions

You are moving the goalposts.

You posted asking is it ok to use organs without informed consent, and have mentioned that there is no consent from the fetus. I posted about the 10 year old boy to illustrate that parents make those decisions for their children in other situations. So, in that context, cause of death is irrelevant.

And your trying to keep this story in the very narrow context of well it's already dead. And I originally said I agree with you about not wasting those organs if that is how you feel about abortion. But we are putting fiscal reasons in front of life, which is wrong. And yes parents can make that choice...when they are not the ones killing them.

Fiscal reasons in front of life? How so?

We can't afford this baby at this time, we can't afford these babies as a society. I don't want this baby to stop me from going to college (to train and find a career). Babies are too time consuming, I don't want it to mess with my career. The fiscal aspect almost always has a major play in the decision

Oh, I was afraid you were talking about the paltry sums quoted in the video.

Yes, I dislike hearing financial reasons for having an abortion..

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

More proof that the planned parenthood story is equine excrement and that the real horror story is Cecil:

Catholic Democrats & the Group Behind the Anti-Planned Parenthood Videos - See more at: http://www.politicalresearch.org/category/blog/#sthash.VNAo9W8Q.dpuf


Anti-abortion Catholic Democrats have long sought to cast their cause as progressive, but their actions have taken them into common cause with the Religious Right. This tendency has been on display during the brouhaha over the publication of the first of what promises to be a series of misleading propaganda videos published by an obscure antiabortion group.

The Center for Medical Progress (a Catholic Right group with no relation to the liberal Washington DC think tank, Center for American Progress) has made news for its tabloid claim that Planned Parenthood Federation of America engages in the potentially criminal harvesting of fetal tissue and organs for profit. But the documentation does not substantiate the charges. In fact, the unedited version of the covertly recorded video and the transcript supports PPFA’s statements that they only engage in the lawful practice of—and with the woman’s consent—donating fetal tissue for medical and research purposes.

Epitomizing the tendency of anti-choice Democrats to become entangled with religious and political elements who are neither progressive or Democratic, is Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG) – whose devotion to the cause has been clear since its founding in 2004


Two days after the release of the first video, Christopher J. Hale (executive director of CACG) published a provocative op-ed in the religion section of The Washington Post online. He called for progressive and Democratic leaders to join him in denouncing Planned Parenthood, citing the Center for Medical Progress’s crude work of propaganda as the justification for his call to moral action.

“Who will say no,” Hale asked, framing his accusation in the form of a question, “to this growing indifference towards others’ invisible sufferings, toward unseen violence, and toward hidden injustices that has metastasized in our national conscience? Who will speak truth to the rich and powerful and denounce Planned Parenthood’s participation and leadership in this throwaway culture and an economy that debases, excludes, and kills?”

Juxtapose Hale’s accusations with journalists like Robin Abcarian at the Los Angeles Times and Robin Marty at Cosmopolitan, who quickly saw that the video does not support the charges. So did the editorial board of The New York Times, which concluded that “the video campaign is a dishonest attempt to make legal, voluntary and potentially lifesaving tissue donations appear nefarious and illegal.”

It did not take long for Hale’s piece to be seen as an outrageous rush to judgement. Jon O’Brien of Catholics for Choice, writing at The Huffington Post, observed that Hale did not let the facts get in the way of the story he wanted to tell. CACG, said O’Brien, “is so hell-bent on making abortion illegal that they went so far as to equate a woman’s abortion decision with torture and war.”

- See more at: Eyes Right Blog Political Research Associates