And this was the post number 1.000 of off-topic. Randomness at its best. About the topic, that's capitalism for you: if it has a demand, someone will try to make a profit over it. The bottom line will be its legality.
Hey! We're almost back on topic! On a related note, here's the website for the people releasing the videos: http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/ And the subsection with the four thus-far released videos http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-footage/ Which includes links to... The unedited footage of the first video: Of the Second Video: Of the Third Video: And fourth unedited video is pending at the time of this post. There is supposedly a fifth video on the youtube channel, but does not appear to be linked to on their website (and/or I am stupid and missed it). I quasi-blame myself for not doing this earlier (and I STILL don't have time to watch these videos in full), but I'm impressed we've had a discussion of seven pages about these videos and I have no idea if anyone's actually watched them. So I thought I'd at least make sure they are available. On a further related note: http://liveactionnews.org/breaking-federal-judge-extends-restraining-order-center-medical-progress/ (Note: That particular article is biased, but it's hard to find a non-biased article on that specific action. The information itself is still probably good.) For those that wish to see what the other side seems to be saying: http://rhrealitycheck.org/tag/center-for-medical-progress/ RH Reality Check is a UN Foundation organization.
Thanks for posting Ohmin. Ideally everyone commenting would have already taken initiative and watched. I have not seen every second, cause so darn long. Placing vids here is convenient, and right on topic. +17 DJ points to you. (If you want them, that is).
So in order to examine the problem with the question, I am going to use simplified examples of a question with a qualifier to demonstrate the structure of these types of questions. "Can an eagle fly the same way as a hawk?" as being structurally similar to "Can an eagle fly the same way as an airplane pilot?' Now, we can see that in each question, there is actually a question, and a qualifier. In these examples, in both cases, we have the question "Can an eagle fly?" which is a basic, yes or no question. However, the question's nature changes when you add the qualifier - it asks us to compare the way the eagle flies to the second object, and implies that there are similarities and/or differences to discuss. In the case of the first question, the two objects are closely related and share many similarities, and it's "easy" to answer yes, tho replace "hawk" with "hummingbird" and we start having to ask ourselves what the question is REALLY asking. This is where we start having an issue of where these types of qualifiers lead to ambiguity as to the querent's intent. Is it the specific method by which flight is achieved? Is it length of time they can remain in the air? Is it as simple as "both can fly?" (In the last case, if that's as simple that, we'd have to question why the qualifier even exists.) This is made more problematic when the qualifier is referring to an object that, while possibly related, is quite different. In this example, an airplane pilot alone certainly can't fly, but he can obviously fly with the help of his airplane. But we are still left with a lot of ambiguity as to what the answer should be, despite the basic question of "can an eagle fly" being quite simple. A question like, "Should <painting x> be considered iconic to its era the same way that <painting y> is iconic to its era?" is less problematic for 2 reasons: 1 - The objects between the question and the qualifier is VERY similar each other in many ways and; 2 - The question provides a queue as to the additional details as to what similarities or differences to look for: "iconic to its era" ~ The question "Should a woman be allowed to sell her fetus" is not a simple question, but answerable - it's just an opinion. But the question of "Should a woman be allowed to sell her fetus the same way that a man sells his sperm?" is, like "Can an eagle fly the same way as an airplane pilot?" ambiguous and compares to things that are related, but also quite different in many ways. What aspects of the male selling sperm are we talking about? Legality? Moral? Availability? Science? If you say that you are simply interested in the opinion of whether a woman should be able to sell her fetus... then it begs the question, why introduce the qualifier? It seems reasonable assume that the qualifier was added for a reason. And it seems rude, generally speaking to ignore a part of someone's question, yet in this case the qualifier makes the question awkward and the answer unclear. For example, say a person believes that woman SHOULD be able to sell her fetus - this person would answer yes to the question "Should a woman be allowed to sell her fetus?" However, when the qualifier is added, it's conceivable that the answer becomes no, because while the person believe the woman should be able to sell her fetus, she does not believe that she can do it without the consent of another individual (the father; an individual that doesn't exist in the sperm selling case), and that such fetuses should not be frozen until such time that someone selects the fetus from a catalog (such as sperm banks do). So, you end up with the problem here of the question being functionally unclear due to the qualifier introducing a comparison that isn't made clear with no additional clues as to what similarities or differences we are discussing between the items being compared. ~ lol, wall of text
The idea that the GOP thought this was even possible just shows how little even our own politicians understand abortion...
Dr. Mary Gatter, President of Planned Parenthood’s Medical Director’s Council, is asked, “What would you expect for intact tissue?” Gatter starts to haggle immediately, “Why don’t you start by telling me what you’re used to paying?” When pushed for a number, Gatter says, “Well, you know in negotiations the person who throws out the figure first is at a loss, right? So…” When pushed again for how much her Planned Parenthood affiliate is willing to sell baby body parts for, she responds, “Okay, $75.” When the buyer tells her that number seems low Gatter responds, “I was going to say $50.” Then the buy offers her $100 to which Gatter quickly responds, “Okay.” After the first video was released last week in which Dr. Deborah Nucatola also appears to negotiate the price of fetal body parts, Planned Parenthood insisted that the price Nucatola mentioned was only related to the costs incurred by Planned Parenthood with no profit involved. In the Nucatola video, however, she is seen and heard explaining that the Planned Parenthood affiliates in the body parts business wanted to do more than “break even.” ...At the end of the tape provided by CMP, Gatter jokes about wanting “a Lamborghini” for body parts. ...The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ood-doctor-haggling-price-of-baby-body-parts/ Want to take another stab at the truth there sir?
According to the people putting out videos I linked to above they are. Do you have any particular reason to not believe them other than the incredible nature of the allegation? In what way does the nature of abortion prevent the selling of fetal tissues and organs? How would this not be possible? These aren't rhetorical questions, if you have additional information I'm not aware of I'd love to see it.
Let me clarify my post. PP is not selling BABY PARTS. Ie. The parts of a baby human. Aborted fetal tissue is not the same thing as a human baby or its "parts" (and although the allegation that they are selling fetal tissue has merit, I also don't think it's as clear-cut as that either). The vast majority of the abortions performed by Planned Parenthood are done in the first trimester, as conceded even in these videos. At the latest point in the first trimester the fetal tissue is a mass about 2-3 inches long, maybe an ounce or so in weight. There are no "baby parts" here, and calling fetal tissue that is an exaggeration that gets people unnecessarily indignant before they even understand what is happening. I'm not at all trying to sanctify abortions or argue that PP is without fault, but to say that they're "selling baby parts" is too crude a misrepresentation of the complexity of the situation to precede any logical discussion of the topic.
