Planned Parenthood senior official caught discussing business in fetal organs [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And this is relevant to Planned Parenthood selling baby parts because?
I would suppose that the relevancy is that PP would then not merely be in the business of selling baby parts that happen to come their way but would be, in a sense, “farming” baby parts by getting their claws into the “production” end of the business - kind of like how large supermarket chains try to buy into farming operations, dairies, processing plants, etc., in order to gain greater control of the entire production/procurement process. It is a method of reducing uncertainties by guaranteeing that all aspects of the business are maintained.

With PP, insuring that vulnerable women would become pregnant and, therefore, want abortions would guarantee that side of their business by maintaining the “supply” side.

Whether PP is capable of that kind of business acumen together with the required level of moral turpitude is an interesting question and demonstrating that fact would certainly prove that their level of “care for women” does not rise above the level that feedlot operations demonstrate in their “care” about cattle.

I do agree with PR on this one. If such a claim is going to be made about PP, then the indisputable proof needs to be presented. Sure, we can have all kinds of suspicions that this is the case, not without some circumstantial evidence, but those are far from establishing that PP is merely a high-end (to be blunt) “meat packing” operation trafficking in high end ”meat” or (at least) that its executives view this as their ultimate business model, perhaps when the moral sensitivities of modern western culture makes it a more feasible or acceptable one. Lambourghinis are, after all, more valuable to some than babies or their parts.

(Isn’t that the philosophy of modern western culture at its most basic? The philosophy that provides apparent legitimacy and cover for PP?)

The other reason I agree with PR is because critics of PP can shoot themselves in the foot by over stretching their case such that PP will, rightfully, I might add, counter that its critics are just making stuff up.

If anything, the videos being released over time permits them to be consumed reflectively such that the real horror of what PP is all about can sink in slowly and take hold of what is left of our moral sensitivities to, hopefully, wake us up as to where this culture is headed if we don’t turn things around.

Let’s not permit PP any leeway or technicality by which to weasel out of the spotlight.

What they do is heinous precisely because babies are wantonly dismembered and baby parts are being trafficked. There is no excuse or warrant that could possibly justify that to any morally intact human being - which says something about the moral accountability of those at PP. Euphemisms should only be permitted so much traction.
 
I would suppose that the relevancy is that PP would then not merely be in the business of selling baby parts that happen to come their way but would be, in a sense, “farming” baby parts by getting their claws into the “production” end of the business - kind of like how large supermarket chains try to buy into farming operations, dairies, processing plants, etc., in order to gain greater control of the entire production/procurement process. It is a method of reducing uncertainties by guaranteeing that all aspects of the business are maintained.

With PP, insuring that vulnerable women would become pregnant and, therefore, want abortions would guarantee that side of their business by maintaining the “supply” side.

Whether PP is capable of that kind of business acumen together with the required level of moral turpitude is an interesting question and demonstrating that fact would certainly prove that their level of “care for women” does not rise above the level that feedlot operations demonstrate in their “care” about cattle.

I do agree with PR on this one. If such a claim is going to be made about PP, then the indisputable proof needs to be presented. Sure, we can have all kinds of suspicions that this is the case, not without some circumstantial evidence, but those are far from establishing that PP is merely a high-end (to be blunt) “meat packing” operation trafficking in high end ”meat” or (at least) that its executives view this as their ultimate business model, perhaps when the moral sensitivities of modern western culture makes it a more feasible or acceptable one. Lambourghinis are, after all, more valuable to some than babies or their parts.

The other reason I agree with PR is because critics of PP can shoot themselves in the foot by over stretching their case such that PP will, rightfully, I might add, counter that its critics are just making stuff up.

If anything, the videos being released over time permits them to be consumed reflectively such that the real horror of what PP is all about can sink in slowly and take hold of what is left of our moral sensitivities to, hopefully, wake us up as to where this culture is headed if we don’t turn things around.

Let’s not permit PP any leeway or technicality by which to weasel out of the spotlight.

What they do is heinous precisely because babies are wantonly dismembered and baby parts are being trafficked. There is no excuse or warrant that could possibly justify that to any morally intact human being - which says something about the moral accountability of those at PP. Euphemisms should only be permitted so much traction.
:tiphat:
 
I would suppose that the relevancy is that PP would then not merely be in the business of selling baby parts that happen to come their way but would be, in a sense, “farming” baby parts by getting their claws into the “production” end of the business - kind of like how large supermarket chains try to buy into farming operations, dairies, processing plants, etc., in order to gain greater control of the entire production/procurement process. It is a method of reducing uncertainties by guaranteeing that all aspects of the business are maintained.

With PP, insuring that vulnerable women would become pregnant and, therefore, want abortions would guarantee that side of their business by maintaining the “supply” side.

Whether PP is capable of that kind of business acumen together with the required level of moral turpitude is an interesting question and demonstrating that fact would certainly prove that their level of “care for women” does not rise above the level that feedlot operations demonstrate in their “care” about cattle.

I do agree with PR on this one. If such a claim is going to be made about PP, then the indisputable proof needs to be presented. Sure, we can have all kinds of suspicions that this is the case, not without some circumstantial evidence, but those are far from establishing that PP is merely a high-end (to be blunt) “meat packing” operation trafficking in high end ”meat” or (at least) that its executives view this as their ultimate business model, perhaps when the moral sensitivities of modern western culture makes it a more feasible or acceptable one. Lambourghinis are, after all, more valuable to some than babies or their parts.

(Isn’t that the philosophy of modern western culture at its most basic? The philosophy that provides apparent legitimacy and cover for PP?)

The other reason I agree with PR is because critics of PP can shoot themselves in the foot by over stretching their case such that PP will, rightfully, I might add, counter that its critics are just making stuff up.

If anything, the videos being released over time permits them to be consumed reflectively such that the real horror of what PP is all about can sink in slowly and take hold of what is left of our moral sensitivities to, hopefully, wake us up as to where this culture is headed if we don’t turn things around.

Let’s not permit PP any leeway or technicality by which to weasel out of the spotlight.

What they do is heinous precisely because babies are wantonly dismembered and baby parts are being trafficked. There is no excuse or warrant that could possibly justify that to any morally intact human being - which says something about the moral accountability of those at PP. Euphemisms should only be permitted so much traction.
More wasted bandwidth . meanwhile the slaughter goes on, the sales continue but we are content to attack each other over whether one poster properly sourced their post.

This is pretty common, unfortunately. we often see more vile directed at those who oppose abortion for their alleged shortcomings than is directed at the abortionists themselves.
 
It has always struck me as odd how an apparent non-profit could receive federal funding and then turn around and donate not-insignificant amounts of THAT same funding to a particular political party.

Strikes me as money laundering of sorts by taking public money and turning it into party money by filtering it through a dependent “charitable” organization.

The way that PP and the Democrats wash each others’ hands and promote each others’ interests using public money just seems illicit.

This is legal in the good ole’ US of A?
 
More wasted bandwidth . meanwhile the slaughter goes on, the sales continue but we are content to attack each other over whether one poster properly sourced their post.

This is pretty common, unfortunately. we often see more vile directed at those who oppose abortion for their alleged shortcomings than is directed at the abortionists themselves.
Well said,Bob!👍
 
More wasted bandwidth . meanwhile the slaughter goes on, the sales continue but we are content to attack each other over whether one poster properly sourced their post.
It is odd that you permit for yourself what you object to in others.
This is pretty common, unfortunately. we often see more vile directed at those who oppose abortion for their alleged shortcomings than is directed at the abortionists themselves.
I believe that (most) members here are big enough and intelligent enough to discuss multiple issues at the same time.
 
More wasted bandwidth . meanwhile the slaughter goes on, the sales continue but we are content to attack each other over whether one poster properly sourced their post.

This is pretty common, unfortunately. we often see more vile directed at those who oppose abortion for their alleged shortcomings than is directed at the abortionists themselves.
Bob, this wasn’t meant to be an “attack,” more of a “let’s point our bayonets in the same direction in order to do the most damage to a common enemy.”

We have to be looking in the right direction in order to see which strategy will be most effective, no?

If we all have a different take on things there will be a tendency towards being injured by friendly fire. We ought to, at least, take the time to get a proper scope on the enemy and agree to that by discussing it, no?
 
It has always struck me as odd how an apparent non-profit could receive federal funding and then turn around and donate not-insignificant amounts of THAT same funding to a particular political party.

Strikes me as money laundering of sorts by taking public money and turning it into party money by filtering it through a dependent “charitable” organization.

The way that PP and the Democrats wash each others’ hands and promote each others’ interests using public money just seems illicit.

This is legal in the good ole’ US of A?
👍 Agreed, I wonder if the NEA, National Education Association is the same deal.

Planned Parenthood endorses candidates, they endorsed Obama and they set out critiques of other candidates. I was trying to find such pages but now, that Planned Parenthood has been in the news so much, it’s hard to find them.

If Planned Parenthood heavily dislikes a candidate, it’s practically a recommendation to vote for them.
 
It’s amazing, I look through all the stories on when this story first hit, at first, the Planned Parenthood side was trying to say “heavily edited”, now that has fallen through, so they have to try to come up with other angles.

God Bless all of the States who have said they have opened up investigations on Planned Parenthood and NOT, those who did the undercover work themselves.
 
We all need to storm the phone lines,or email our congressman/ women before they vote on defunding PP in a week or so. Why the heck are we the taxpayers supporting this vile institution by way of tax dollars? Sickening!:mad:
 
👍 Agreed, I wonder if the NEA, National Education Association is the same deal.

Planned Parenthood endorses candidates, they endorsed Obama and they set out critiques of other candidates. I was trying to find such pages but now, that Planned Parenthood has been in the news so much, it’s hard to find them.

If Planned Parenthood heavily dislikes a candidate, it’s practically a recommendation to vote for them.
Isn’t there an issue with religious organizations possibly losing tax exempt status if they promote or affiliate with a particular political candidate or party against another? Why is PP not held to the same standard given that it receives public money and is, ostensibly, a non-profit organization?
 
It’s amazing, I look through all the stories on when this story first hit, at first, the Planned Parenthood side was trying to say “heavily edited”, now that has fallen through, so they have to try to come up with other angles.
From this past weekend, from ABC News, the Planned Parenthood person’s response (starting at about 2:12):

abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/cecile-richards-undercover-video-controversy-32692756

The speaker doesn’t respond that much to what happened in the videos, mostly criticizes the group that put them out (references to the “militant wing of the anti-abortion movement” and violence against abortion clinics and murder of doctors).
 
Isn’t there an issue with religious organizations possibly losing tax exempt status if they promote or affiliate with a particular political candidate or party against another? Why is PP not held to the same standard given that it receives public money and is, ostensibly, a non-profit organization?
As I understand it, there’s two groups:

(1) Planned Parenthood:

plannedparenthood.org/

(2) The Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which claims to be the “nonpartisan advocacy and political arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America” and is referred to on the link on the main site as “an independent Planned Parenthood 501(c)(4) entity”:

plannedparenthoodaction.org/
 
As I understand it, there’s two groups:

(1) Planned Parenthood:

plannedparenthood.org/

(2) The Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which claims to be the “nonpartisan advocacy and political arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America” and is referred to on the link on the main site as “an independent Planned Parenthood 501(c)(4) entity”:

plannedparenthoodaction.org/
Two-headed beast indeed, but the case being made is that the heads are not connected to the same body (by way of legalism I’m sure) when they obviously are.
 
Two-headed beast indeed, but the case being made is that the heads are not connected to the same body (by way of legalism I’m sure) when they obviously are.
I wonder if it be more accurate to say that there is one head connected to two bodies? They manage to trick people into thinking a fetus is something other than what it obviously is so it’s probably not much harder to trick people into thinking they are two separate entities and non-partisan.
 
Seen on Facebook just now:
The Center for Medical Progress:
CMP STATEMENT ON MERITLESS LAWSUIT FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD BABY PARTS BUYER
StemExpress, a for-profit company partnered with over 30 abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood, to harvest and sell aborted baby parts and provide a “financial benefit” to Planned Parenthood clinics, is attempting to use meritless litigation to cover-up this illegal baby parts trade, suppress free speech, and silence the citizen press reporting on issues of burning concern to the American public. They are not succeeding—their initial petition was rejected by the court, and their second petition was eviscerated to a narrow and contingent order about an alleged recording pending CMP’s opportunity to respond. The Center for Medical Progress follows all applicable laws in the course of our investigative journalism work and will contest all attempts from Planned Parenthood and their allies to silence our First Amendment rights and suppress investigative journalism.
 
Geraldo Rivera defended Planned Parenthood by saying what if that tissue lead to the cure for cancer . My thought was , other than what a stupid argument was it was, that even if we could find a cure for cancer by using the dismembered parts of babies it wouldn’t be worth it. We are a better people than that.

I guess a good comeback to Mr. Rivera would be what ifv the baby whose parts we saw being split into piles in that dish was the person destined to find a cure for cancer?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top