M
MarcoPolo
Guest
That’s not what a straw man is. My reasoning remains sound. You concede that the victim doesn’t grant consent. That proves the point.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Planned Parenthood senior official caught discussing business in fetal organs [CWN]
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Your shock value is not an argument. But when you hear in Nucatola’s testimony that they had to give the appearance of not making a profit because they were under a microscope, it is obviously easier to disguise $50 every time in the name of “handling” than some gigantic amount that could not be as easily covered up.organ trafficking for a mere $86K per year? Seriously?
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Parent’s can’t legally authorize their neighbor to hack their kids up with a chainsaw just because the kid is a minor. I don’t even know what you are talking about here.Ah-ah. Not so fast. Remember that children under 18 have no legal standing, and the authority to consent (or not) is delegated to their parents.
S
sarah_j
Guest
Parents sign consent forms for their underage children to receive medicalAh-ah. Not so fast. Remember that children under 18 have no legal standing, and the authority to consent (or not) is delegated to their parents. Which is exactly what we have here: the women coming for abortion sign the consent form.
treatment.
However, parents can’t consent to have their underage children killed
and their organs harvested without being charged with murder.
You really have to do some mental gymnastics to contend that a late term
abortion (and therefore, any abortion) isn’t the killing of a baby.
E
ephesians4
Guest
Nonetheless, even if either a child or its parent can make the homicide of a newly born baby to be butchered and sold, a lawful act, the consent given would have to be consent to birth a child and then kill it, which cannot really be done for obvious reasons.MarcoPolo has set up a straw man saying that the fetuses did not consent to have their organs harvested. But since the fetus cannot make a statement of will for obvious reasons, the authority to make such consent is delegated to the woman, who, obviously, did consent to organ harvesting.
Really when I realised what was being said in this video, I had the same sinking feeling I got when, as a youngster, I absorbed accounts of German GPs under the nazi regime injecting pregnant women with carbolic acid and sitting there watching them die… taking notes.
Sometimes in life you are confronted with pure evil, and all too often in recent history you will find, somewhere in the picture, a doctor brimming with self-assured arrogance and “professional detachment” behaving in their daily life like some nightmarish demon from the blackest pits of hell. Sometimes they are even advancing medicine (Mengele did so) it does not change what they are.
I place this -]thing/-] woman in the same category as Josef Mengele, the GPs with the carbolic acid and so on, she should be in prison for life if only for what she has admitted.
W
weller2
Guest
Unless the child is unborn, then they can.However, parents can’t consent to have their underage children killed
and their organs harvested without being charged with murder.
Of course it is, I never said otherwise.You really have to do some mental gymnastics to contend that a late term
abortion (and therefore, any abortion) isn’t the killing of a baby.
T
Theo520
Guest
The’ll probably be able to cover it with cost accounting, but another $50/abortion is an additional 5-10% revenue boost on what they charge for the procedure. From the press I’ve read, it’s likely the clinics had no out of pocket costs for that increase.Per the website:
Moral considerations aside, these people are idiots. Set yourself up for charges of organ trafficking for a mere $86K per year? Seriously? And the fun part is that this company pays PP $50 per liver, and then resells the distilled cells for $500 and up. So that’s obviously where the real money is and the PP people could have trivially set up the business structure to get a cut of this money while being completely clear in the legal sense.
As we say in my part of the world, If God wants to punish someone, He takes his brains away.
And as you imply, I expect StemExpress scratches their back in other ways. Maybe an all expense paid training conference in Hawaii, etc… Pharmaceuticals have perfected this with doctors. I’d like to see where StemExpress is spending their money, and making political contributions. Who’s on their board and are their hiring the same doctors as consultants etc.
E
Elizium23
Guest
They can if the child is born too, BUT in that case they are charged eith a heinous crime. So what we’d like to know is, why the double standard? What makes a born child so superior and deserving of rights than an unborn child?Unless the child is unborn, then they can.
W
weller2
Guest
No, what they did still makes no sense.Your shock value is not an argument. But when you hear in Nucatola’s testimony that they had to give the appearance of not making a profit because they were under a microscope, it is obviously easier to disguise $50 every time in the name of “handling” than some gigantic amount that could not be as easily covered up.
First, if the goal was to make money, they could have trivially set up the operation so there is no risk of criminal charges. It took me like two minutes to figure out how to do it, and I’m no legal expert. For starters, if it’s illegal to sell fetal parts, then you don’t invoice your clients for fetal parts, which is what they did…
Second, if you are doing something illegal, then the rule of thumb is that the profit from the operation should be enough so you can hire an expensive lawyer. $50 per liver obviously does not do that.
Amateurs.
W
weller2
Guest
A peculiar feature of American legal system, known as the Roe v. Wade decision.They can if the child is born too, BUT in that case they are charged eith a heinous crime. So what we’d like to know is, why the double standard? What makes a born child so superior and deserving of rights than an unborn child?
E
Elizium23
Guest
But why? Is it right? Is it moral? Does every decision the Supreme Court makes enjoy infallibility?A peculiar feature of American legal system, known as the Roe v. Wade decision.
W
weller2
Guest
Yes, but that’s a highly illegal $50. The end market is apparently stem cells, which retail from $500 upwards. If they set up their own stem cell lab in the basement, and started selling these, then they would both have a larger profit (vertical integration, baby!) and much better legal situation.The’ll probably be able to cover it with cost accounting, but another $50/abortion is an additional 5-10% revenue boost on what they charge for the procedure.
Amateurs.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
And the American legal system has never made a wrong decision before and then reversed it. . .A peculiar feature of American legal system, known as the Roe v. Wade decision.
and people who objected to the wrong decisions made by the courts never spoke up about it and through their repeated witness and unrelenting devotion to the truth never were able to get the wrong righted.
And the Civil War never happened.
Tell me. . .if in say 2018 Roe was reversed (and it’s been close to that more than once in the last 40 years) and it was no longer ‘legal’ to kill the unborn, just as it is now not legal to kill the born. . .
How would you feel about the children who were killed over the 40 plus years it was ‘legal’ to do so?
What of the child that was killed on the last day it was ‘legal’? How would you feel the next day about the subject of abortion? What would you think about that child killed the day before --and the one the day before that, and the day before that?
“But it was LEGAL, therefore it was OK??”
W
weller2
Guest
Because Roe v. Wade effectively means that the woman owns the fetus until birth.But why? Is it right? Is it moral? Does every decision the Supreme Court makes enjoy infallibility?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You didn’t answer the question. Plenty of people in the U.S. legally owned slaves… for a lot longer than the 40 or so years Roe has been in place.Because Roe v. Wade effectively means that the woman owns the fetus until birth.
E
Elizium23
Guest
But why? Is it right? Is it moral? Does every decision the Supreme Court makes enjoy infallibility?
“Because I said so” is bad parenting and not an acceptable answer for these questions.Because Roe v. Wade effectively means that the woman owns the fetus until birth.
T
Theo520
Guest
Who are the LLC partners in StemExpress and such companies?Yes, but that’s a highly illegal $50. The end market is apparently stem cells, which retail from $500 upwards. If they set up their own stem cell lab in the basement, and started selling these, then they would both have a larger profit (vertical integration, baby!) and much better legal situation.
Amateurs.
Maybe that’s how they ‘set up their own lab’.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
True dat.“Because I said so” is bad parenting and not an acceptable answer for these questions.
I’m old, but not old enough to remember Nazi Germany and WW2. . .but one can’t help see the parallels in ‘logical thinking’.
After all, having Jews wear special clothing was LEGAL, right?
Taking them off to concentration camps was legal, right?
The government knew best, right? And hey, if some of the actions seemed a bit dicey --oh wait, they’re actually putting these people to death? but. . .well, we’re at war, and it’s us against them, and I’m just following orders, you can’t blame me for just trying to do what I’m told. . .
It all started in such a SMALL way, and such a would be HELPFUL way, you know? Germany had war damages to pay from WW1, there was a world wide recession, some of Hitler’s plans for a strong unified Germany seemed just and logical and good for all the people. the ‘long range’ forecast was couched in such ways. . .and those little things ‘along the way’ were maybe not really such great things but hey, you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs --and after all, it started out being stuff done by only a few people. in 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936 etc. you yourself might not even have noticed more than a few Jewish people in your small town, and you CERTAINLY didn’t go around breaking their windows or stealing their property. You might not even have known this was going on in other places. . . and if it was, it was probably because THEY had been going around stealing, and this was only a just restitution. . .
and the lies kept spreading, and the propaganda kept growing. . .
Kind of reminds me about how we were told that abortion should be ‘safe, legal, and rare’, and that it was ONLY to be done in cases of incest and rape. . .
and then it was only to be done if the poor mother’s ‘mental health’ was in danger. . .
and then it was ONLY a ‘blob of tissue’
and then it was ‘the woman’s body’
and then it wasn’t simply ‘a’ choice, it was the preferred choice.
The lies keep spreading and propaganda keeps growing. . .
W
weller2
Guest
LLC records are public, go look it up.Who are the LLC partners in StemExpress and such companies?
No. If you own the lab, then you can simply donate the body parts to the lab and then pay yourself a cut of profits from the sale of stem cells. Since there is technically no sale of organs involved, there is no crime. But that’s not what they did. They sold the organs to the lab and invoiced for it.Maybe that’s how they ‘set up their own lab’.
Let’s say you want to kill someone. A smart person will hire a professional hitman through the intermediaries, so they cannot be traced. A normal person will kill the victim themselves, dispose of the body, and keep quiet. A stupid person will kill the victim theselves, record that on video, and send the video to the police. This is what they did.
That woman is either a complete idiot or she was purposedly set up to be the scapegoat to protect a larger operation.
S
saintjohnxxiii
Guest
I would gladly be an anti-choicer than a supporter of baby murder like yourself.This isn’t revenue. The money is to cover the cost of transporting the tissue to the donor recipient. This is just another ginned up non-controversy from a desperate movement of radical anti-choicers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.