Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts

[sakinago]

Ha no, it has very little to do with numbers. arist 2 chat, if a dr looking over schaivo says "she's getting better everyday, and will make a full recovery in 4 or so months on life support, slight chance she won't make it, but she'll be back to normal just give it time" ... Is it still ok for the husband to pull her off life support?

You do realize the wife is not a fetus or a premie dont you?

Yes I do, you do realize you can answer the question

If you answer mine I will answer yours.

Not sure what your question is, but I've never seen more people dodge a question on usmb than right now

If you had not of dodged my question in the first place you wouldnt have to ask what it is.at this point. You mentioned that no one was in jail from PP for the same reason Hilary was not in jail. I asked you........

"What reason is that if its the same?"

Oh I already answered, activist justice department IRS targeting is not conspiracy, the whole thing started with the IRS admitting they had been unfairly targeting, but tried to play it down as a few lone wolves. Then we found out it wasn't just a few low level employes, but it was systemic probably went to the top. No one can prove it went to Lerner, bc Lerner destroyed evidence in an active investigation, stuff that congress was requesting for the investigation. That is a felony for you and me

 

[paddymurphy]

So you have a copy of them before they were edited??

You say they are edited, if you have not seen the originals with your own eyes how do you know??

Even if there is some editing how do you justify morally anything we have seen.

This editing, what would it have changed??

I mean it seems to be the crux of your assertion, that they are edited.

So tell us all, how and for what reason??

You cant have it both ways. If you are claiming that PP broke some law why are they not in prison? If you are claiming a conspiracy then you must have some proof. Where is it?

Another Obama / democratic / left failure to follow the law and enforce it as per SOP.

They broke no law.

 

[Asclepias]

You do realize the wife is not a fetus or a premie dont you?

Yes I do, you do realize you can answer the question

If you answer mine I will answer yours.

Not sure what your question is, but I've never seen more people dodge a question on usmb than right now

If you had not of dodged my question in the first place you wouldnt have to ask what it is.at this point. You mentioned that no one was in jail from PP for the same reason Hilary was not in jail. I asked you........

"What reason is that if its the same?"

Oh I already answered, activist justice department IRS targeting is not conspiracy, the whole thing started with the IRS admitting they had been unfairly targeting, but tried to play it down as a few lone wolves. Then we found out it wasn't just a few low level employes, but it was systemic probably went to the top. No one can prove it went to Lerner, bc Lerner destroyed evidence in an active investigation, stuff that congress was requesting for the investigation. That is a felony for you and me

Must be tough living with conspiracies and no proof of anything.

 

[sakinago]

So can I get an answer to is it ok for the husband to pull life support on sciavo if MD says "she's showing signs of recovery, and will be healthy and back to normal, just keep her on life support for 4 months or so"

 

[sakinago]

19 Facts On IRS Targeting President Obama Can t Blame On Republicans - Forbes

Thank you forbes. If all of that sounds perfectly normal, then I have a bridge to sell you

 

[sakinago]

Yes I do, you do realize you can answer the question

If you answer mine I will answer yours.

Not sure what your question is, but I've never seen more people dodge a question on usmb than right now

If you had not of dodged my question in the first place you wouldnt have to ask what it is.at this point. You mentioned that no one was in jail from PP for the same reason Hilary was not in jail. I asked you........

"What reason is that if its the same?"

Oh I already answered, activist justice department IRS targeting is not conspiracy, the whole thing started with the IRS admitting they had been unfairly targeting, but tried to play it down as a few lone wolves. Then we found out it wasn't just a few low level employes, but it was systemic probably went to the top. No one can prove it went to Lerner, bc Lerner destroyed evidence in an active investigation, stuff that congress was requesting for the investigation. That is a felony for you and me

Must be tough living with conspiracies and no proof of anything.

Now can I get an answer

 

[Asclepias]

If you answer mine I will answer yours.

Not sure what your question is, but I've never seen more people dodge a question on usmb than right now

If you had not of dodged my question in the first place you wouldnt have to ask what it is.at this point. You mentioned that no one was in jail from PP for the same reason Hilary was not in jail. I asked you........

"What reason is that if its the same?"

Oh I already answered, activist justice department IRS targeting is not conspiracy, the whole thing started with the IRS admitting they had been unfairly targeting, but tried to play it down as a few lone wolves. Then we found out it wasn't just a few low level employes, but it was systemic probably went to the top. No one can prove it went to Lerner, bc Lerner destroyed evidence in an active investigation, stuff that congress was requesting for the investigation. That is a felony for you and me

Must be tough living with conspiracies and no proof of anything.

Now can I get an answer

No you cant get an answer. I dont lower myself to pretending to have rational conversation with someone that holds on to conspiracies without a shred of proof. You may as well be one of those people that claim aliens kidnapped and molested them.

 

[sakinago]

Not sure what your question is, but I've never seen more people dodge a question on usmb than right now

If you had not of dodged my question in the first place you wouldnt have to ask what it is.at this point. You mentioned that no one was in jail from PP for the same reason Hilary was not in jail. I asked you........

"What reason is that if its the same?"

Oh I already answered, activist justice department IRS targeting is not conspiracy, the whole thing started with the IRS admitting they had been unfairly targeting, but tried to play it down as a few lone wolves. Then we found out it wasn't just a few low level employes, but it was systemic probably went to the top. No one can prove it went to Lerner, bc Lerner destroyed evidence in an active investigation, stuff that congress was requesting for the investigation. That is a felony for you and me

Must be tough living with conspiracies and no proof of anything.

Now can I get an answer

No you cant get an answer. I dont lower myself to pretending to have rational conversation with someone that holds on to conspiracies without a shred of proof. You may as well be one of those people that claim aliens kidnapped and molested them.

Haha total dodging, if there's holes in the argument then please point them out, if not then please answer or get off your high horse

 

[sakinago]

If you had not of dodged my question in the first place you wouldnt have to ask what it is.at this point. You mentioned that no one was in jail from PP for the same reason Hilary was not in jail. I asked you........

"What reason is that if its the same?"

Oh I already answered, activist justice department IRS targeting is not conspiracy, the whole thing started with the IRS admitting they had been unfairly targeting, but tried to play it down as a few lone wolves. Then we found out it wasn't just a few low level employes, but it was systemic probably went to the top. No one can prove it went to Lerner, bc Lerner destroyed evidence in an active investigation, stuff that congress was requesting for the investigation. That is a felony for you and me

Must be tough living with conspiracies and no proof of anything.

Now can I get an answer

No you cant get an answer. I dont lower myself to pretending to have rational conversation with someone that holds on to conspiracies without a shred of proof. You may as well be one of those people that claim aliens kidnapped and molested them.

Haha total dodging, if there's holes in the argument then please point them out, if not then please answer or get off your high horse

And get off your high horse actually, that's what I meant.

And don't feel bad, your one of many to run from this question

 

[EverCurious]

In both of your presented cases, it was the BUYER (the fraud) who was saying that, NOT PP.

No it wasn't, you asshat. It was the PP director, you ******* idiot.

I'm an idiot? Uhm, women have different voices, clearly you can't tell the difference...

Video 1 -

Time stamp 4:46. FEMALE BUYER is talking about top compensation and shit, NOT PP.

FEMALE BUYER: "... for example compensation. I want to come in and pay you top dollar because I know what you're going to be facing, and I want you to be happy, I want to make sure our suppliers are happy, so compensation, okay, your cost is negligent. So it could look like we're paying you for a specimens," ~ NOT PP

FEMALE BUYER 5 "So let's talk about it correctly."

PP: "mhmm"

FEMALE BUYER 5:06: "We all know that, yet, that's what we're doing."

PP 5:07: "So processing and time, and..." - FEMALE BUYER CUTS OFF PP: "Exactly." PP:: "Yeah." (Your ******* subtitles flat out LIE)

FEMALE BUYER 5:15 "So yes, I am paying you, but how we're talking about it out there in the 'public square'." Video cuts out.

The buyer implied clearly in the beginning of the exchange that there was obvious concern about it being seen as paying for specimens despite the fact that it was just compensation for "Processing and time." LEGAL COMPENSATION.

Video 2 -

In context, PP had no idea how much it costs but the BUYER wants an answer so she reports what she's seen in other agencies as the cost.

PP 3 "$75 a specimen."

FEMALE BUYER: "Oh, that's way to low." PP Shrugs FEMALE BUYER 3 "And that's really, that's way too low. I don't -" slightly interrupted by pp but continues "I want to keep you happy." PP continues: "And I was going to say $50. I've been to places that did $50 too. But see, we don't, we're not in it for the money, we don't want to be" Video cuts out.

Jesus, just the statement from PP there, "we're not in it for the money," blows your bullshit wide open and it's in your supposed video "evidence." NOT TRYING TO MAKE A PROFIT.

 

[sakinago]

In both of your presented cases, it was the BUYER (the fraud) who was saying that, NOT PP.

No it wasn't, you asshat. It was the PP director, you ******* idiot.

I'm an idiot? Uhm, women have different voices, clearly you can't tell the difference...

Video 1 -

Time stamp 4:46. FEMALE BUYER is talking about top compensation and shit, NOT PP.

FEMALE BUYER: "... for example compensation. I want to come in and pay you top dollar because I know what you're going to be facing, and I want you to be happy, I want to make sure our suppliers are happy, so compensation, okay, your cost is negligent. So it could look like we're paying you for a specimens," ~ NOT PP

FEMALE BUYER 5 "So let's talk about it correctly."

PP: "mhmm"

FEMALE BUYER 5:06: "We all know that, yet, that's what we're doing."

PP 5:07: "So processing and time, and..." - FEMALE BUYER CUTS OFF PP: "Exactly." PP:: "Yeah." (Your ******* subtitles flat out LIE)

FEMALE BUYER 5:15 "So yes, I am paying you, but how we're talking about it out there in the 'public square'." Video cuts out.

The buyer implied clearly in the beginning of the exchange that there was obvious concern about it being seen as paying for specimens despite the fact that it was just compensation for "Processing and time." LEGAL COMPENSATION.

Video 2 -

In context, PP had no idea how much it costs but the BUYER wants an answer so she reports what she's seen in other agencies as the cost.

PP 3 "$75 a specimen."

FEMALE BUYER: "Oh, that's way to low." PP Shrugs FEMALE BUYER 3 "And that's really, that's way too low. I don't -" slightly interrupted by pp but continues "I want to keep you happy." PP continues: "And I was going to say $50. I've been to places that did $50 too. But see, we don't, we're not in it for the money, we don't want to be" Video cuts out.

Jesus, just the statement from PP there, "we're not in it for the money," blows your bullshit wide open and it's in your supposed video "evidence." NOT TRYING TO MAKE A PROFIT.

I've already stated my view that if this is how you feel about abortion, then yes donate the tissue. But, Americans have felt very strongly for in the past about things we've been very wrong on; slavery, Jim Crow, manifest destiny, interment camps, DOMA. Are we that daft to think we are completely right today?? Like so many civilizations before us thought they were totally justified?

 

[koshergrl]

In both of your presented cases, it was the BUYER (the fraud) who was saying that, NOT PP.

No it wasn't, you asshat. It was the PP director, you ******* idiot.

I'm an idiot? Uhm, women have different voices, clearly you can't tell the difference...

Video 1 -

Time stamp 4:46. FEMALE BUYER is talking about top compensation and shit, NOT PP.

FEMALE BUYER: "... for example compensation. I want to come in and pay you top dollar because I know what you're going to be facing, and I want you to be happy, I want to make sure our suppliers are happy, so compensation, okay, your cost is negligent. So it could look like we're paying you for a specimens," ~ NOT PP

FEMALE BUYER 5 "So let's talk about it correctly."

PP: "mhmm"

FEMALE BUYER 5:06: "We all know that, yet, that's what we're doing."

PP 5:07: "So processing and time, and..." - FEMALE BUYER CUTS OFF PP: "Exactly." PP:: "Yeah." (Your ******* subtitles flat out LIE)

FEMALE BUYER 5:15 "So yes, I am paying you, but how we're talking about it out there in the 'public square'." Video cuts out.

The buyer implied clearly in the beginning of the exchange that there was obvious concern about it being seen as paying for specimens despite the fact that it was just compensation for "Processing and time." LEGAL COMPENSATION.

Video 2 -

In context, PP had no idea how much it costs but the BUYER wants an answer so she reports what she's seen in other agencies as the cost.

PP 3 "$75 a specimen."

FEMALE BUYER: "Oh, that's way to low." PP Shrugs FEMALE BUYER 3 "And that's really, that's way too low. I don't -" slightly interrupted by pp but continues "I want to keep you happy." PP continues: "And I was going to say $50. I've been to places that did $50 too. But see, we don't, we're not in it for the money, we don't want to be" Video cuts out.

Jesus, just the statement from PP there, "we're not in it for the money," blows your bullshit wide open and it's in your supposed video "evidence." NOT TRYING TO MAKE A PROFIT.

That's an intricate and awesome lie. Does it feel slimy when you defend people who blatantly profit off the misery and deaths of the vulnerable and abused?

 

[EverCurious]

In both of your presented cases, it was the BUYER (the fraud) who was saying that, NOT PP.

No it wasn't, you asshat. It was the PP director, you ******* idiot.

I'm an idiot? Uhm, women have different voices, clearly you can't tell the difference...

Video 1 -

Time stamp 4:46. FEMALE BUYER is talking about top compensation and shit, NOT PP.

FEMALE BUYER: "... for example compensation. I want to come in and pay you top dollar because I know what you're going to be facing, and I want you to be happy, I want to make sure our suppliers are happy, so compensation, okay, your cost is negligent. So it could look like we're paying you for a specimens," ~ NOT PP

FEMALE BUYER 5 "So let's talk about it correctly."

PP: "mhmm"

FEMALE BUYER 5:06: "We all know that, yet, that's what we're doing."

PP 5:07: "So processing and time, and..." - FEMALE BUYER CUTS OFF PP: "Exactly." PP:: "Yeah." (Your ******* subtitles flat out LIE)

FEMALE BUYER 5:15 "So yes, I am paying you, but how we're talking about it out there in the 'public square'." Video cuts out.

The buyer implied clearly in the beginning of the exchange that there was obvious concern about it being seen as paying for specimens despite the fact that it was just compensation for "Processing and time." LEGAL COMPENSATION.

Video 2 -

In context, PP had no idea how much it costs but the BUYER wants an answer so she reports what she's seen in other agencies as the cost.

PP 3 "$75 a specimen."

FEMALE BUYER: "Oh, that's way to low." PP Shrugs FEMALE BUYER 3 "And that's really, that's way too low. I don't -" slightly interrupted by pp but continues "I want to keep you happy." PP continues: "And I was going to say $50. I've been to places that did $50 too. But see, we don't, we're not in it for the money, we don't want to be" Video cuts out.

Jesus, just the statement from PP there, "we're not in it for the money," blows your bullshit wide open and it's in your supposed video "evidence." NOT TRYING TO MAKE A PROFIT.

That's an intricate and awesome lie. Does it feel slimy when you defend people who blatantly profit off the misery and deaths of the vulnerable and abused?

In both of your presented cases, it was the BUYER (the fraud) who was saying that, NOT PP.

No it wasn't, you asshat. It was the PP director, you ******* idiot.

I'm an idiot? Uhm, women have different voices, clearly you can't tell the difference...

Video 1 -

Time stamp 4:46. FEMALE BUYER is talking about top compensation and shit, NOT PP.

FEMALE BUYER: "... for example compensation. I want to come in and pay you top dollar because I know what you're going to be facing, and I want you to be happy, I want to make sure our suppliers are happy, so compensation, okay, your cost is negligent. So it could look like we're paying you for a specimens," ~ NOT PP

FEMALE BUYER 5 "So let's talk about it correctly."

PP: "mhmm"

FEMALE BUYER 5:06: "We all know that, yet, that's what we're doing."

PP 5:07: "So processing and time, and..." - FEMALE BUYER CUTS OFF PP: "Exactly." PP:: "Yeah." (Your ******* subtitles flat out LIE)

FEMALE BUYER 5:15 "So yes, I am paying you, but how we're talking about it out there in the 'public square'." Video cuts out.

The buyer implied clearly in the beginning of the exchange that there was obvious concern about it being seen as paying for specimens despite the fact that it was just compensation for "Processing and time." LEGAL COMPENSATION.

Video 2 -

In context, PP had no idea how much it costs but the BUYER wants an answer so she reports what she's seen in other agencies as the cost.

PP 3 "$75 a specimen."

FEMALE BUYER: "Oh, that's way to low." PP Shrugs FEMALE BUYER 3 "And that's really, that's way too low. I don't -" slightly interrupted by pp but continues "I want to keep you happy." PP continues: "And I was going to say $50. I've been to places that did $50 too. But see, we don't, we're not in it for the money, we don't want to be" Video cuts out.

Jesus, just the statement from PP there, "we're not in it for the money," blows your bullshit wide open and it's in your supposed video "evidence." NOT TRYING TO MAKE A PROFIT.

That's an intricate and awesome lie. Does it feel slimy when you defend people who blatantly profit off the misery and deaths of the vulnerable and abused?

WHAT LIE?!? It's in the damn videos....

 

[koshergrl]

In both of your presented cases, it was the BUYER (the fraud) who was saying that, NOT PP.

No it wasn't, you asshat. It was the PP director, you ******* idiot.

I'm an idiot? Uhm, women have different voices, clearly you can't tell the difference...

Video 1 -

Time stamp 4:46. FEMALE BUYER is talking about top compensation and shit, NOT PP.

FEMALE BUYER: "... for example compensation. I want to come in and pay you top dollar because I know what you're going to be facing, and I want you to be happy, I want to make sure our suppliers are happy, so compensation, okay, your cost is negligent. So it could look like we're paying you for a specimens," ~ NOT PP

FEMALE BUYER 5 "So let's talk about it correctly."

PP: "mhmm"

FEMALE BUYER 5:06: "We all know that, yet, that's what we're doing."

PP 5:07: "So processing and time, and..." - FEMALE BUYER CUTS OFF PP: "Exactly." PP:: "Yeah." (Your ******* subtitles flat out LIE)

FEMALE BUYER 5:15 "So yes, I am paying you, but how we're talking about it out there in the 'public square'." Video cuts out.

The buyer implied clearly in the beginning of the exchange that there was obvious concern about it being seen as paying for specimens despite the fact that it was just compensation for "Processing and time." LEGAL COMPENSATION.

Video 2 -

In context, PP had no idea how much it costs but the BUYER wants an answer so she reports what she's seen in other agencies as the cost.

PP 3 "$75 a specimen."

FEMALE BUYER: "Oh, that's way to low." PP Shrugs FEMALE BUYER 3 "And that's really, that's way too low. I don't -" slightly interrupted by pp but continues "I want to keep you happy." PP continues: "And I was going to say $50. I've been to places that did $50 too. But see, we don't, we're not in it for the money, we don't want to be" Video cuts out.

Jesus, just the statement from PP there, "we're not in it for the money," blows your bullshit wide open and it's in your supposed video "evidence." NOT TRYING TO MAKE A PROFIT.

That's an intricate and awesome lie. Does it feel slimy when you defend people who blatantly profit off the misery and deaths of the vulnerable and abused?

In both of your presented cases, it was the BUYER (the fraud) who was saying that, NOT PP.

No it wasn't, you asshat. It was the PP director, you ******* idiot.

I'm an idiot? Uhm, women have different voices, clearly you can't tell the difference...

Video 1 -

Time stamp 4:46. FEMALE BUYER is talking about top compensation and shit, NOT PP.

FEMALE BUYER: "... for example compensation. I want to come in and pay you top dollar because I know what you're going to be facing, and I want you to be happy, I want to make sure our suppliers are happy, so compensation, okay, your cost is negligent. So it could look like we're paying you for a specimens," ~ NOT PP

FEMALE BUYER 5 "So let's talk about it correctly."

PP: "mhmm"

FEMALE BUYER 5:06: "We all know that, yet, that's what we're doing."

PP 5:07: "So processing and time, and..." - FEMALE BUYER CUTS OFF PP: "Exactly." PP:: "Yeah." (Your ******* subtitles flat out LIE)

FEMALE BUYER 5:15 "So yes, I am paying you, but how we're talking about it out there in the 'public square'." Video cuts out.

The buyer implied clearly in the beginning of the exchange that there was obvious concern about it being seen as paying for specimens despite the fact that it was just compensation for "Processing and time." LEGAL COMPENSATION.

Video 2 -

In context, PP had no idea how much it costs but the BUYER wants an answer so she reports what she's seen in other agencies as the cost.

PP 3 "$75 a specimen."

FEMALE BUYER: "Oh, that's way to low." PP Shrugs FEMALE BUYER 3 "And that's really, that's way too low. I don't -" slightly interrupted by pp but continues "I want to keep you happy." PP continues: "And I was going to say $50. I've been to places that did $50 too. But see, we don't, we're not in it for the money, we don't want to be" Video cuts out.

Jesus, just the statement from PP there, "we're not in it for the money," blows your bullshit wide open and it's in your supposed video "evidence." NOT TRYING TO MAKE A PROFIT.

That's an intricate and awesome lie. Does it feel slimy when you defend people who blatantly profit off the misery and deaths of the vulnerable and abused?

WHAT LIE?!? It's in the damn videos....

The videos have lots of footage of various pp bigwigs giggling and simpering and patting themselves on the back for getting top dollar and putting women at increased risk for it....while musing about how they make it appear legal.

 

[EverCurious]

No they don't. You're seeing what you want to see.

 

[koshergrl]

No they don't. You're seeing what you want to see.

Lol that's rich from the people who claim that what was filmed somehow isn't real.

 

[aris2chat]

Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.

You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?

The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??

It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.

Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.

Neither.
You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.

Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.

It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.

Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how ******* stupid you are.

Selling of body parts is illegal, ******* moron.

And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.

Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.

They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part

Liver and kidney do not function in a fetus. The mother's organ clear the waste and filter the blood. The fetus organs are not coded to know what they are. A raw egg is not a souffle. A canvas is not a work of art. A piece of metal is not a car.

It is tissue that would have been disposed of. The donor approved of it being used for research, it was her tissue.

When you have tissue removed, from breast tissue to a piece of skin, it has to be biopsied. Why shouldn't tissue be used for research if it is of benefit? It is donated. It is not your tissue, so what is your problem? Maybe one day you will be the one saved from the research?

 

[EverCurious]

No they don't. You're seeing what you want to see.

Lol that's rich from the people who claim that what was filmed somehow isn't real.

uhm.... Considering I cited the videos and shit, I don't think I'm one of those people...

 

[aris2chat]

Neither.
You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.

Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.

It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.

Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how ******* stupid you are.

Selling of body parts is illegal, ******* moron.

And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.

Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.

They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part

they can't function as they are under developed.
As for the 'liver' that was begun ten years ago in the Neatherlands. Now they use the cells to treat hemophilia by matching the cells up with the persons DNA to create a clotting agent. The liver after all is what purifies the blood. Mouse liver were not as effective. When possible, staying within the species is preferable for a body match. When no possible other animals are used for transplants and testing, but eventually human trials have to begin.

Would you rather have a pig heart, or a human heart that was donated?

Would you rather have baboon blood or human blood?

The fetal cell are so immature they can be programed with the person's DNA to get match. They can't transplant the fetal liver as it is far too small and the programming is not complete as to what type of cell it should be yet. It is still learning it is supposed to be a liver cell before the fetus is born.

It is like a lump of clay, it has to be molded and shaped before it become a work of art. It takes time. It does not become a work of art when it is first thrown. The cells are the same way, they are still learning what they are. That is why they can be so easily match/programed for someone's DNA

Why do folks that are ignorant in medicine come in and spout Bull Shit??

So ever heard of Ionescu-Shiley heart valves??

Bovine or Porcine, pick your flavor, seems to have made this company millions.

There is no widely accepted "blood substitute" , it's primary function is to carry oxygen and no you can not use others species blood in humans.

Those fetal cells, that can be programmed, are those "embryonic" or "fetal"??

That fetal liver can not be grown larger in the lab??

So not possible to transplant a fetal tissue liver into a human, you do realize the article that follows will pretty much end your moronic stance.

[Snip]
Fetal liver transplants.
Gale RP1.
Author information
Abstract
Transplants of hematopoietic stem cells derived from fetal liver during the second trimester of pregnancy can restore hematopoiesis in animals and humans with bone marrow failure. These cells also have a reduced likelihood of causing graft-versus-host disease. Because fetal liver derived hematopoietic stem cells are relatively pure and considerable proliferative potential, they may be reasonable targets for studies of gene modification. Other possible uses of fetal liver derived stem cells are also considered as are results of fetal liver transplants in animals and humans. These data are compared to alternative sources of hematopoietic stem cells including bone marrow and umbilical cord and adult blood.

Fetal liver transplants. - PubMed - NCBI

Abortions are done in the first trimester. Later terms are done to save the mother's life or prevent a still birth due to birth defect or deformity or infant death right after birth that would cause suffering for the infant.

As for the valve, the failure was due to a cusp tear.

 

[sakinago]

You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?

The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??

It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.

Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.

Neither.
You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.

Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.

It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.

Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how ******* stupid you are.

Selling of body parts is illegal, ******* moron.

And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.

Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.

They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part

Liver and kidney do not function in a fetus. The mother's organ clear the waste and filter the blood. The fetus organs are not coded to know what they are. A raw egg is not a souffle. A canvas is not a work of art. A piece of metal is not a car.

It is tissue that would have been disposed of. The donor approved of it being used for research, it was her tissue.

When you have tissue removed, from breast tissue to a piece of skin, it has to be biopsied. Why shouldn't tissue be used for research if it is of benefit? It is donated. It is not your tissue, so what is your problem? Maybe one day you will be the one saved from the research?

So why do they want later term livers for research so badly? (Watch first video). And I notice you give no time mark for what say