I want a Lamborghini

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:08 pm

Alefroth wrote:
Pyperkub wrote:
WYBaugh wrote:
Alefroth wrote:
Rip wrote:I see it as a post about people openly breaking the law.

Which laws were being broken?
This?
Was it interstate commerce or in violation of a state law? I have no idea, as I don't get my information from youtube...
As far as I could tell from the OP link, no sale happened. Merely negotiations.

Lol, there were no negotiations. That's the entire point of why this is all on the video creators. Literally nothing untoward happened. No laws were broken (except maybe by the video creators, although I have no idea which, if any). The entire controversy was manufactured through editing and a desire to slander (defame? What is video called? It's not written so I guess slander...Frig, but images can be libel, so....?) Planned Parenthood.

WYBaugh · Post by **WYBaugh** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:27 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Alefroth wrote:
Pyperkub wrote:
WYBaugh wrote:
Alefroth wrote:
Rip wrote:I see it as a post about people openly breaking the law.

Which laws were being broken?
This?
Was it interstate commerce or in violation of a state law? I have no idea, as I don't get my information from youtube...
As far as I could tell from the OP link, no sale happened. Merely negotiations.
Lol, there were no negotiations. That's the entire point of why this is all on the video creators. Literally nothing untoward happened. No laws were broken (except maybe by the video creators, although I have no idea which, if any). The entire controversy was manufactured through editing and a desire to slander (defame? What is video called? It's not written so I guess slander...Frig, but images can be libel, so....?) Planned Parenthood.

I agree GreenGoo. I wasn't thinking things through when I posted the link. In the video, no laws are being broken but the intent of the video is to possibly break the law I posted.

But from reading about all of this, the video is highly edited.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:32 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Alefroth wrote:
Pyperkub wrote:
WYBaugh wrote:
Alefroth wrote:
Rip wrote:I see it as a post about people openly breaking the law.

Which laws were being broken?
This?
Was it interstate commerce or in violation of a state law? I have no idea, as I don't get my information from youtube...
As far as I could tell from the OP link, no sale happened. Merely negotiations.
Lol, there were no negotiations. That's the entire point of why this is all on the video creators. Literally nothing untoward happened. No laws were broken (except maybe by the video creators, although I have no idea which, if any). The entire controversy was manufactured through editing and a desire to slander (defame? What is video called? It's not written so I guess slander...Frig, but images can be libel, so....?) Planned Parenthood.

Well, Gatter herself called them negotiations. I don't believe negotiating is breaking any laws though, which was my point.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:17 pm

I don't see if it is just reimbursement why their is so much price difference between the different components? The cost of shipping and storing shouldn't be that different for such obviously small tissues samples.

I also recall a bit about checking to see what others are getting. Why would you do that unless you are adjusting the price based on the market and not cost?

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:17 pm

Rip wrote:I don't see if it is just reimbursement why their is so much price difference between the different components? The cost of shipping and storing shouldn't be that different for such obviously small tissues samples.

I also recall a bit about checking to see what others are getting. Why would you do that unless you are adjusting the price based on the market and not cost?

Nevermind shipping and storing, I'll come get that Lamborghini...

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:28 pm

Rip wrote:I don't see if it is just reimbursement why their is so much price difference between the different components? The cost of shipping and storing shouldn't be that different for such obviously small tissues samples.

I also recall a bit about checking to see what others are getting. Why would you do that unless you are adjusting the price based on the market and not cost?

Yep. While nothing wrong was taking place, that's what made it seem like something wrong was taking place.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 12:57 am

Because those costs are already included in operating costs. To slice them out of the bigger line items can be a pain in the ass. So I've got a fridge. I store steaks in it. How much does it cost for me to store 1 steak in it? Let's say I'm operating at capacity. So let's say it fits 100 steaks. Ok, electricity, rent, maintenance...let's say we come up with a number. Divide by 100. Easy right? Except what if I'm operating at half capacity? Does it take the same amount of electricity to refrigerate 50 steaks as it does 100 steaks, per unit? Maybe. Maybe not.

I hate these kinds of questions because they answers always seem so simple to me. Can I imagine a scenario where actual per unit costs are hidden inside larger operating costs? Yes. And that's your answer. How come costs vary so much? Because they are an estimate, and if the article is correct, a pretty shitty estimate, since the person in the article suggested that $100 bucks per unit were be an operating loss. But really, who cares? Unless they are storing a million units, being out 20 bucks, or 100 bucks, or even 500 bucks per unit is absolutely nothing when compared to the operating budget for Planned Parenthood.

Every day I have o deal with people that can't see outside their own head. If they can't imagine it, it doesn't exist. The problem is they have no imagination, so I have to actually create a hypothetical that's viable to get them to look outside their own viewpoint, and even then they just attack the hypothetical, like it's the only problem with what they are suggesting.

Asking "why do the cost estimates vary so much?" is suggesting that you can't envision costs outside of your own experience, and given that you don't have any experience in the body part storage field, your vision is completely lacking.

Ok, this was part answer, part rant about a pet peeve that's been bugging me for awhile, both on and off line.

Things exist outside your own experiences people. Hard to believe I know, but it's true. Use that big ol' brain and imagine stuff. It's fun. And profitable.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 12:59 am

Alefroth wrote: Well, Gatter herself called them negotiations. I don't believe negotiating is breaking any laws though, which was my point.

Fair enough. But what's being negotiated is the amount it would take to recoup costs on a per unit basis. They aren't haggling over the price of baby meat which is what we were supposed to believe.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:01 am

Rip wrote:I also recall a bit about checking to see what others are getting. Why would you do that unless you are adjusting the price based on the market and not cost?

Because you're really freakin' lazy and someone else has already done the work for you, all you have to do is call and ask them.

This is actually part of my daily bullcrap. We came up with a fairly extensive costing model (which still sucked in my opinion, but it was better than nothing) which immediately got adopted by multiple other departments, not because it was good, but because it a) looked good and b) was already done.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:45 am

GreenGoo wrote:Because those costs are already included in operating costs. To slice them out of the bigger line items can be a pain in the ass. So I've got a fridge. I store steaks in it. How much does it cost for me to store 1 steak in it? Let's say I'm operating at capacity. So let's say it fits 100 steaks. Ok, electricity, rent, maintenance...let's say we come up with a number. Divide by 100. Easy right? Except what if I'm operating at half capacity? Does it take the same amount of electricity to refrigerate 50 steaks as it does 100 steaks, per unit? Maybe. Maybe not.

I hate these kinds of questions because they answers always seem so simple to me. Can I imagine a scenario where actual per unit costs are hidden inside larger operating costs? Yes. And that's your answer. How come costs vary so much? Because they are an estimate, and if the article is correct, a pretty shitty estimate, since the person in the article suggested that $100 bucks per unit were be an operating loss. But really, who cares? Unless they are storing a million units, being out 20 bucks, or 100 bucks, or even 500 bucks per unit is absolutely nothing when compared to the operating budget for Planned Parenthood.

Every day I have o deal with people that can't see outside their own head. If they can't imagine it, it doesn't exist. The problem is they have no imagination, so I have to actually create a hypothetical that's viable to get them to look outside their own viewpoint, and even then they just attack the hypothetical, like it's the only problem with what they are suggesting.

Asking "why do the cost estimates vary so much?" is suggesting that you can't envision costs outside of your own experience, and given that you don't have any experience in the body part storage field, your vision is completely lacking.

Ok, this was part answer, part rant about a pet peeve that's been bugging me for awhile, both on and off line.

Things exist outside your own experiences people. Hard to believe I know, but it's true. Use that big ol' brain and imagine stuff. It's fun. And profitable.

But why does a pound of steak cost more than a pound of liver if the cost of the meat itself isn't included?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:20 am

It's all just fetal tissue. Not different organ types. What are you referring to in light of that?

I quoted this from factcheck.or earlier, but the second paragraph from that quote was left off. It sheds a bit more light on things.

Nucatola does make one statement in the unedited video that suggests to critics that some clinics would be comfortable with a payment that was slightly more than their expenses for providing the tissue. “I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they’re a nonprofit, they just don’t want to — they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that,” Nucatola says.

But immediately after this statement, Nucatola goes on to say: “Really their bottom line is, they want to break even. Every penny they save is just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn’t get.” Planned Parenthood told us that she may have been referring to more general operations of the clinics.

It's pretty clear that they're NOT looking to make a profit, but if it does they'll use those profits to provide better care for their patients. If people would just do a little research (and I'm looking at people like Rand Paul who should freakin' know better as a physician, but apparently is too stupid to actually think for himself) they'd realize this was a blatant case of editing the facts to fit an agenda.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:45 am

GreenGoo wrote:
Alefroth wrote:
Pyperkub wrote:
WYBaugh wrote:
Alefroth wrote:
Rip wrote:I see it as a post about people openly breaking the law.

Which laws were being broken?
This?
Was it interstate commerce or in violation of a state law? I have no idea, as I don't get my information from youtube...
As far as I could tell from the OP link, no sale happened. Merely negotiations.
Lol, there were no negotiations. That's the entire point of why this is all on the video creators. Literally nothing untoward happened. No laws were broken (except maybe by the video creators, although I have no idea which, if any). The entire controversy was manufactured through editing and a desire to slander (defame? What is video called? It's not written so I guess slander...Frig, but images can be libel, so....?) Planned Parenthood.

I would say slander.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:56 pm

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:58 pm

Also, sorry about the rant yesterday.

Pet peeve boiled over.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 4:48 pm

GreenGoo wrote: To slice them out of the bigger line items can be a pain in the ass. So I've got a fridge.

Freudian slip, methinks.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 4:56 pm

Grifman wrote:
GreenGoo wrote: To slice them out of the bigger line items can be a pain in the ass. So I've got a fridge.
Freudian slip, methinks.

Perhaps. It certainly wasn't intentional.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:29 pm

Lol. Boss, out of the blue, just complimented me on my ability to do what I said above in my pet peeve rant. i.e. see beyond the current (limited) facts.

So that's good. I guess.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:36 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQuZMvcFA8

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 6:34 pm

Rip wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQuZMvcFA8

Care to sum up the outrage this time? I refuse to give those jackasses 11 minutes of my day.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 8:29 pm

Skinypupy wrote:
Rip wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQuZMvcFA8
Care to sum up the outrage this time? I refuse to give those jackasses 11 minutes of my day.

I watched 5 seconds of it.

It boils down to "although our other video was heavily edited to show planned parenthood in a poor light, *this* video is legit, and shows planned parenthood in a poor light".

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 8:38 pm

Just more evidence that PP is knee deep in the business of selling dead baby parts.

In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Ginde at the abortion-clinic headquarters of PPRM in Denver to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs. When the actors request intact fetal specimens, Ginde reveals that in PPRM’s abortion practice, “Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.”

Since PPRM does not use digoxin or other feticide in its 2nd trimester procedures, any intact deliveries before an abortion are potentially born-alive infants under federal law (1 USC 8).

“We’d have to do a little bit of training with the providers or something to make sure that they don’t crush” fetal organs during 2nd trimester abortions, says Ginde, brainstorming ways to ensure the abortion doctors at PPRM provide usable fetal organs.

When the buyers ask Ginde if “compensation could be specific to the specimen?” Ginde agrees, “Okay.” Later on in the abortion clinic’s pathological laboratory, standing over an aborted fetus, Ginde responds to the buyer’s suggestion of paying per body part harvested, rather than a standard flat fee for the entire case: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”

Ginde also suggests ways for Planned Parenthood to cover-up its criminal and public relations liability for the sale of aborted body parts. “Putting it under ‘research’ gives us a little bit of an overhang over the whole thing,” Ginde remarks. “If you have someone in a really anti state who’s going to be doing this for you, they’re probably going to get caught.”

Ginde implies that PPRM’s lawyer, Kevin Paul, is helping the affiliate skirt under the fetal tissue law: “He’s got it figured out that he knows that even if, because we talked to him in the beginning, you know, we were like, ‘We don’t want to get called on,’ you know, ‘selling fetal parts across states.’” The buyers ask, “And you feel confident that they’re building those layers?” to which Ginde replies, “I’m confident that our Legal will make sure we’re not put in that situation.”

Although I'm sure most of you don't care. Too worried about important things like who killed a lion and such.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 8:48 pm

No, just think that this is another ACORN farce looking for an over-reaction in a buildup to an election. I'm strongly pro-choice, and don't get that outraged about what happens after. I do fear for the people in Red States given how strongly the pro-lifers have banished just about all choice providers however.

I'll take that Lamborghini though

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 8:59 pm

Pyperkub wrote:No, just think that this is another ACORN farce looking for an over-reaction in a buildup to an election. I'm strongly pro-choice, and don't get that outraged about what happens after. I do fear for the people in Red States given how strongly the pro-lifers have banished just about all choice providers however.

I'll take that Lamborghini though

I'm pro-choice. I just think it should be a discouraged choice and that no one in the process should be interested in aborting any more babies than they must. A key in that to me is making sure no one sees it as a financial "opportunity".

As it is I think much of society sees having an abortion as no different than getting your tonsils removed. No matter how you slice it the issue involves terminating a human life, and we as a society I fear are more concerned about animals that have their lives terminated than that of unborn babies.

If they really need aborted babies for research then they should be given to universities at no cost.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:40 am

Rip wrote:Just more evidence that PP is knee deep in the business of selling dead baby parts.

What do you mean, *more* evidence? I'm still waiting on *some*.

As far as the lion thing, I can worry about 2 things. I just choose not to.

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:04 am

This whole thing reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-up8ebz06yA

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:18 am

There's simple solution for Planned Parenthood that would solve a lot of their problems. Just separate the baby killing operation from their other woman's health work - create two separate non-profits. They could even work out a sharing agreement so that they could use the same offices. They could call one "Women's Health Services" and the other "Baby Killing, Inc". That way the women's health services would be protected/insulated from anything having to do with abortion.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:24 am

Rip wrote:Although I'm sure most of you don't care. Too worried about important things like who killed a lion and such.

Rip wrote:we as a society I fear are more concerned about animals that have their lives terminated than that of unborn babies.

I've seen this similar sentiment repeated ad nauseum by most of my conservative friends over the last few days. "Unborn babies are suffering, but liberals only care about dead lions". "Our Veterans are suffering, but liberals only care about dead lions." "Small Businesses are suffering, but liberals are only concerned about dead lions." "The economy is suffering, but liberals are only concerned about dead lions."

You know, it is possible to be interested/concerned about more than one issue at a time. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 12:40 pm

Skinypupy wrote:
Rip wrote:Although I'm sure most of you don't care. Too worried about important things like who killed a lion and such.

Rip wrote:we as a society I fear are more concerned about animals that have their lives terminated than that of unborn babies.
I've seen this similar sentiment repeated ad nauseum by most of my conservative friends over the last few days. "Unborn babies are suffering, but liberals only care about dead lions". "Our Veterans are suffering, but liberals only care about dead lions." "Small Businesses are suffering, but liberals are only concerned about dead lions." "The economy is suffering, but liberals are only concerned about dead lions."

You know, it is possible to be interested/concerned about more than one issue at a time. These things are not mutually exclusive.

What irks me about the entire conservative thing is abortion is bad! Oh, but we cut funding to food stamps so low income familys with children get to starve. Abortion bad, lets cut family planning. Abortion bad, but lets cut funding to low income health care. Abortion bad, but lets not teach kids sex education. Big government shouldn't interfere in peoples lives, but abortion bad so outlaw it.
It just seems to me that if you are completely against something, you should offer an alternative. Having a child has a large economic decision. Give them some other alternative. Currently the only one in many situations is bring them into a life were they can't be supported and likely turn to a life of crime, or put them up for adoption, where there are already hundreds of thousands of kids already waiting.

Combustible Lemur · Post by **Combustible Lemur** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:23 pm

Genghis wrote:
Skinypupy wrote:
Rip wrote:Although I'm sure most of you don't care. Too worried about important things like who killed a lion and such.

Rip wrote:we as a society I fear are more concerned about animals that have their lives terminated than that of unborn babies.
I've seen this similar sentiment repeated ad nauseum by most of my conservative friends over the last few days. "Unborn babies are suffering, but liberals only care about dead lions". "Our Veterans are suffering, but liberals only care about dead lions." "Small Businesses are suffering, but liberals are only concerned about dead lions." "The economy is suffering, but liberals are only concerned about dead lions."

You know, it is possible to be interested/concerned about more than one issue at a time. These things are not mutually exclusive.

What irks me about the entire conservative thing is abortion is bad! Oh, but we cut funding to food stamps so low income familys with children get to starve. Abortion bad, lets cut family planning. Abortion bad, but lets cut funding to low income health care. Abortion bad, but lets not teach kids sex education. Big government shouldn't interfere in peoples lives, but abortion bad so outlaw it.
It just seems to me that if you are completely against something, you should offer an alternative. Having a child has a large economic decision. Give them some other alternative. Currently the only one in many situations is bring them into a life were they can't be supported and likely turn to a life of crime, or put them up for adoption, where there are already hundreds of thousands of kids already waiting.

Nonsense, that is what bootstraps are for..... and jesus.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:28 pm

Grifman wrote:There's simple solution for Planned Parenthood that would solve a lot of their problems. Just separate the baby killing operation from their other woman's health work - create two separate non-profits. They could even work out a sharing agreement so that they could use the same offices. They could call one "Women's Health Services" and the other "Baby Killing, Inc". That way the women's health services would be protected/insulated from anything having to do with abortion.

And you presume this would satisfy their detractors and preserve their funding? I at most can see a likely very small percentage of the more reasonable detractors being happy with this, the rest would be out for the death of both organizations just as strong as before.

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:33 pm

It would also be interesting to know how many of these staged video recordings had to be done before they got what they wanted. You can find bad actors in any organization if you spend enough time looking.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:34 pm

Enough wrote:
Grifman wrote:There's simple solution for Planned Parenthood that would solve a lot of their problems. Just separate the baby killing operation from their other woman's health work - create two separate non-profits. They could even work out a sharing agreement so that they could use the same offices. They could call one "Women's Health Services" and the other "Baby Killing, Inc". That way the women's health services would be protected/insulated from anything having to do with abortion.
And you presume this would satisfy their detractors and preserve their funding? I at most can see a likely very small percentage of the more reasonable detractors being happy with this, the rest would be out for the death of both organizations just as strong as before.

If the two were separated financially, yes. It wouldn't satisfy everyone but if they were separate and the financing transparent, then yes, I think it would.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:36 pm

Grifman wrote:
Enough wrote:
Grifman wrote:There's simple solution for Planned Parenthood that would solve a lot of their problems. Just separate the baby killing operation from their other woman's health work - create two separate non-profits. They could even work out a sharing agreement so that they could use the same offices. They could call one "Women's Health Services" and the other "Baby Killing, Inc". That way the women's health services would be protected/insulated from anything having to do with abortion.
And you presume this would satisfy their detractors and preserve their funding? I at most can see a likely very small percentage of the more reasonable detractors being happy with this, the rest would be out for the death of both organizations just as strong as before.
If the two were separated financially, yes. It wouldn't satisfy everyone but if they were separate and the financing transparent, then yes, I think it would.

I wouldn't be against them trying I suppose, but you are far more optimistic on this one than me.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:50 pm

Genghis wrote:
Skinypupy wrote:
Rip wrote:Although I'm sure most of you don't care. Too worried about important things like who killed a lion and such.

Rip wrote:we as a society I fear are more concerned about animals that have their lives terminated than that of unborn babies.
I've seen this similar sentiment repeated ad nauseum by most of my conservative friends over the last few days. "Unborn babies are suffering, but liberals only care about dead lions". "Our Veterans are suffering, but liberals only care about dead lions." "Small Businesses are suffering, but liberals are only concerned about dead lions." "The economy is suffering, but liberals are only concerned about dead lions."

You know, it is possible to be interested/concerned about more than one issue at a time. These things are not mutually exclusive.

What irks me about the entire conservative thing is abortion is bad! Oh, but we cut funding to food stamps so low income familys with children get to starve. Abortion bad, lets cut family planning. Abortion bad, but lets cut funding to low income health care. Abortion bad, but lets not teach kids sex education. Big government shouldn't interfere in peoples lives, but abortion bad so outlaw it.
It just seems to me that if you are completely against something, you should offer an alternative. Having a child has a large economic decision. Give them some other alternative. Currently the only one in many situations is bring them into a life were they can't be supported and likely turn to a life of crime, or put them up for adoption, where there are already hundreds of thousands of kids already waiting.

To me it's all about giving a more humane option. Currently I am pro-abortion, pro-food stamps, pro-lunch in schools, and pro low income health care. It seems more humane to help a poor couple that realizes it cannot support a child to have the option of not bringing the child into the world. Then for the poor couple who decides to have the child, it seems more humane to make sure the child is at least not starving and has access to medical care.

But someone could convince me to get behind banning abortion, banning food stamps, banning lunch in schools and banning low income health care if they also tell me they are FOR mandatory child killing for couples below the poverty line. Because it seems to me more humane to kill the child rather than have it try to eek out a meager existence otherwise. So how about it, any takers?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:52 pm

raydude wrote:eek

eke

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 3:01 pm

Genghis wrote:It just seems to me that if you are completely against something, you should offer an alternative. Having a child has a large economic decision. Give them some other alternative. Currently the only one in many situations is bring them into a life were they can't be supported and likely turn to a life of crime, or put them up for adoption, where there are already hundreds of thousands of kids already waiting.

I agree, which is the reason I that personally support most of the programs mentioned above.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 3:08 pm

raydude wrote: Because it seems to me more humane to kill the child rather than have it try to eek out a meager existence otherwise. So how about it, any takers?

Really, then why don't most poor children/people commit suicide if things are that bad? This fact belies your argument. Poor children/people, once they are born, want to live, even in poverty. Sure, life could be better, but they overwhelmingly choose to live. I'm not aware of many that wish, "Gee, I wish I was aborted." Please explain this if you think aborting them is "humane".

As for a "meager" existence, you are aware that most poor people have cars, color TV's, air conditioning, cell phones, etc.. Now I'm not denying that they are poor and that there are not significant things that need to be done, but their existence is hardly "meager" by any means. You want meager, go to a third world country.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 3:11 pm

Genghis wrote:It would also be interesting to know how many of these staged video recordings had to be done before they got what they wanted. You can find bad actors in any organization if you spend enough time looking.

Even worse - medical research is really icky. It really is like making sausage still - you really don't want to look too closely at the process - and that makes this kind of attack very, very effective.

I am a strong believer that stem cell research is likely to be one of the most beneficial areas of research over the next 50 years at least, but there are definite ethical qualms to go with it, and I'm sure there are some shady deals - but this isn't a criminal investigation into those ethics, this is a political witch hunt designed to destroy Planned Parenthood - designed quite effectively too, I might add. And this actually just strengthens my support for Planned Parenthood as they are squarely in the target circle of the radical right now.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 3:15 pm

So I wonder how things will change when they identify the gene sequence for homosexuality and people are aborting based on that?

My gut tells me people will be offended and try to stop it from happening.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 3:21 pm

Genghis wrote:Currently the only one in many situations is bring them into a life were they can't be supported and likely turn to a life of crime,

The vast majority of poor people are honest law abiding people. It's interesting that you would support abortion by using a stereotype, that most poor people are likely to be criminals. I'll also add that you don't know who is going to become a criminal. Yet you think it is ok to kill ahead of time to eliminate that potentiality. Don't you see something wrong with that - you're punishing people who aren't even guilty of anything yet. Very "Minority Report"-ish.

What's interesting is if you were a conservative said poor people are likely to be criminals, people would be all over you and rightly so. But use this to justify abortion and you get a pass. Not a peep from anyone here.