Matt Walsh:
Good news, abortion fans! Turns out the hours and hours and hours of footage showing Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of baby limbs and organs can officially be discounted and dismissed. According to a report sent to Congress yesterday, the videos are “heavily edited” and “inaccurate.”
Whew! Finally, we can revert back to completely ignoring the continued holocaust of helpless, innocent children. What a relief! All this selling dead baby stuff was really giving my conscience a workout. I guess I can return it to the shelf and get back to the business of displaying utter disdain and disregard for basic human decency.
Or maybe not.
Despite the claim, reported as fact, that the videos are “totally manipulated” and “altered,” making them essentially worthless as evidence, the truth remains exactly the same. Planned Parenthood sells dead baby parts. This is a fact, and it has not been even remotely debunked.
Someone should inform the media about this, by the way. They demonstrated no interest in Planned Parenthood’s trafficking of dead baby parts up until now, but since an analysis has supposedly “disproved” the claim, suddenly the whole issue seems relevant to them. The Center For Medical Progress has been releasing footage for two months, but it wasn’t front page news until a report declared it “deceptive.” The media acknowledged the revelations for long enough to categorically dismiss them. Now, we’re supposed to just move on.
Unfortunately for the abortion industry and its disciples in mass media, I actually took the radical step of reading the entire report myself. I encourage you to check it out. Americans should probably learn to investigate information for themselves rather than relying on the Huffington Post and CNN to give them the cliff notes.
On that front, my own independent analysis of the independent analysis came to vastly difference conclusions.
Here are my findings:
1. No matter what — even if the videos used computer animation and special effects and the Planned Parenthood officials were actually Tom Cruise wearing realistic masks like in “Mission Impossible” — we still know that Planned Parenthood kills over 300,000 human beings a year. That’s established. Nobody denies it. The defunding of Planned Parenthood should still proceed, even if this all turns out to be an elaborate and morbid Broadway production, because no civilized country should fund the murder of human beings. Period.
Now, stop and think about this for a second: abortion enthusiasts are tripping over themselves to paint these videos as “false,” because they can’t bring themselves to accept that their beloved Planned Parenthood would sell human limbs and organs. Yet, these same brainwashed sycophants eagerly accept, and in fact applaud, the fact that Planned Parenthood kills children to begin with. This is like defending Jeffrey Dahmer by passionately insisting that the reports of cannibalism were falsified. Even if they were, he still, uh, like, murdered 17 people, didn’t he? Cannibalism would make his crimes more dramatic, I suppose, but either way, he’s a damned serial killer. So is Planned Parenthood.
2. I want everyone reading this right now to please remember one thing for as long as you live: Planned Parenthood can never be trusted. Ever. Under any circumstance. They are liars to their core. Filthy, murderous liars. They lie about everything. Of course they do. Again, they kill human beings, what do you expect? Planned Parenthood lies when it says “3 percent of its business is abortion.” It lies when it says it does mammograms. It lies to women. It lies to everyone. It lies all the time, in every situation. When raped teenage girls come in for abortions, it lies by not reporting the abuse to authorities. It keeps women in the dark. It lives in the dark. It thrives on lies. And lies. And lies. And lies.
This is a relevant point because the “independent analysts” who inspected the videos were hired by Planned Parenthood. They were not, in fact, independent at all. They were working for, and being paid by, the very organization being investigated. On top of it all, the report comes to us courtesy of a company called Fusion GPS, which is a deeply partisan opposition research firm tied to the Democrat Party.
Surely, none of us are stupid enough to think there was every any chance Planned Parenthood would hire liberal partisan “analysts” who’d potentially come back and say, “Yep, Planned Parenthood broke the law!” The outcome was predetermined. This report, which is now being disseminated as gospel by an ethically bankrupt media, is the result of Planned Parenthood investigating itself. Surprise! Planned Parenthood says Planned Parenthood is entirely innocent of wrongdoing (except for murdering the equivalent of the population of Delaware every year — that part is true, but never mind). Is that really supposed to settle the issue?
3. As for the report itself, like I said, read it. Please read it. Lord, it’s laughable. I really want you to read it so you understand just how thoroughly, profoundly, irreparably dishonest the abortion industry is about everything, and how beholden our nation’s “reporters” are to it. Then again, maybe these water-carrying media members are just angling to the be the latest recipients of the trophies Planned Parenthood hands out to the most cooperative and obedient journalists.
Here’s the deal: not only does Planned Parenthood’s report fail to disprove CPM’s findings, it actually verifies them. In the first couple of paragraphs, the report admits, and I quote, “this analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.” Alright. So there you go. The end, folks. Why are we still talking about this?
It says it did find “cuts and skips” but qualifies that “many of the edits likely removed irrelevant content.” Well, obviously. This was a months-long undercover investigation compiling thousands of hours of tape. Would it make any sense for them to put out a YouTube video with 180,000 minutes of uncut footage? I don’t even think YouTube allows videos that long, and in any case, nobody would watch it. It’s hard to get anyone to sit still for something more than 30 seconds long. A minute is pushing it. Two minutes might as well be the director’s cut of “Gone With The Wind.”
As it happens, they did release extended versions of each condensed video, which means they went vastly above and beyond what most undercover journalists would do. Naturally, no matter what, there are going to be substantial gaps of time where nobody is saying anything and nothing is happening. They took that out, just as anyone making any video for any reason would. Why are we pretending this is somehow suspicious? Is this the first time we’ve encountered the concept of “making a video”? Almost every video you see anywhere on the internet or TV is edited. Only now, because Planned Parenthood is being called to task, do we feign shock at the fact. “Wait, there’s a four minute gap where someone leaves to go to the bathroom? WHY DIDN’T YOU INCLUDE THAT PART? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE?”
The point is, the whole “the videos were edited!” thing is incredibly disingenuous, and this report only underscores that point. They took hours and hours and hours of video and gave us a long and a short edition to inspect. The question is whether the footage they did provide is substantively manipulated. On that score, Planned Parenthood itself admits it wasn’t.
4. The report does detail some “deceptive” edits, however. For instance:
“Fusion GPS consulted with an experienced reality and documentary television producer, Scott Goldie, for an expert opinion of the editing techniques used in the short videos. Mr.Goldie identifies the use of ominous music, replays, color manipulation, “scratch” effects, strategic display of frame counters and timestamps, all chosen to create “gotcha” moments.”
This is what we’re dealing with. Planned Parenthood sent an analysis to Congress which purports to vindicate it because a reality TV producer noticed background music. Yes, and also everyone else noticed it. I’m not sure why they had to drag in someone from Hollywood to tell us about it, but so be it. There was music at the beginning and end, and replays in the middle to highlight some particularly damning pieces of film. These edits are obvious and absolutely irrelevant. To even include them in the report is at once embarrassing and hilarious.
The report also spends a considerable amount of time contradicting two tiny, immaterial portions of transcript from one of the videos. It states that Fusion GPS didn’t find “any evidence of audio manipulation,” and says again later that it never found anything indicating that audio was “inserted or manipulated,” but it does take issue with CPM’s interpretation of two supposedly “unintelligible” bits of dialogue.
In one of the videos, a Planned Parenthood staff member refers to a murdered unborn child as a “baby,” and in another part, a lab tech looks down at the mangled corpse of a dead baby, laughs, and remarks, “another boy!”
Here is Planned Parenthood’s smoking gun. Out of 10 pages, the analysis spends the most time here, which should tell you something. They can’t defend themselves against the substance of the accusations — that they sell organs and limbs for profit and alter their procedures to preserve specimens — so they dedicate paragraph upon paragraph to refuting the most trivial aspects.
Even there, they can’t disprove anything. Nothing. Nothing is disproved anywhere in the report, even the things that don’t make a difference anyway. Instead, they tell us their forensic analysts and Hollywood producers couldn’t verify that “it’s a baby” and “another boy” were actually said. Maybe they said “hey there lady” and “I want a toy” or “call me maybe” and “I’d like some soy (sauce).” Maybe they said a million other things, or maybe they said precisely what it sounds like they said.
It’s of no consequence.
I’ll bet the bastards edited out where, in each separate investigation, the innocent, falsely-accused Planned Parenthood baby part salespersons clearly stated, “Not really, we’re just kidding.”
Probes into alleged for-profit organ harvesting have turned up exactly nothing.
Or, just because you saw it in a movie doesn’t make it true, even if the movie is supposedly a documentary.
Video editing is about putting things together to produce the desired impression. The desired impression isn’t necessarily the truth.
@Greg:
Then give us an example, Greg, of a single edit in any of the released videos where the individuals filmed are taken out of context or are portrayed deceptively as not saying what has been claimed. Just one.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and clamping your eyes shut like a 5 year old saying, “I’m not listening lalalala” doesn’t make the barbaric statements of the PP butchers untrue. Nor does your fervent insistence that PP has done nothing wrong debunk the clear fact that at least 3 PP butchers and one StemExpress ghoul stated on video that they are harvesting for sale the human organs and entire intact fetal corpses of aborted infants.
Just because PP and StemExpress say the videos have been edited – especially with no proof of any deceptive editing – doesn’t erase what they were caught saying, and the legal action taken by StemExpress to stop.the release of videos of their ghoul talking about intact fetal corpses being purchased gives CMP far more credence than the pathetically desperate PP/StemExpress claims of editing.
Just one edit showing false representation of what was said, Greg. Show us just a single one.
‘Course you’ll have to open your eyes, take your fingers out of your ears, and stop chanting bogus denials first….
Media Matters provides a list of deceptive edits, along with before and after transcripts to demonstrate the nature of the deception. The liars in this case are the people who pretended to be representatives of a legitimate medical specimen procurement company, and the people who edited the video footage they secretly collected to deliberately misrepresent the position taken by the Planned Parenthood representative. Planned Parenthood ought to sue for slander and defamation. It would be a total waste of time, of course. Organizations that fund this sort of thing just evaporate and pop up later as something different.
The people who ran the scam appear to have about as much journalistic integrity as James O’Keefe. They’re not only lying to their targets; they’re also lying to the public about the meaning of the “information” they collect. The lies are obviously deliberate, as the deceptive editing is unquestionably purposeful. They probably even lie to themselves, imagining that they hold the moral high ground, lies, deceit, and slander notwithstanding. They likely give themselves a pass on all of that, based on an assumption that the end justifies the means. That’s potentially dangerous thinking.
@Greg:
Of course Media Matters, that’s the ticket. This Soros sponsored gutter site is hardly credible. Yet you cling to it as expected.
Try this one.
@Greg: I wonder, Greg (gee, wasn’t ME that, on another subject, chastised people for asking questions to which they already knew the answer?) did you READ these “deceptive edits”? Admittedly, I only read 8 or 10 of them (I can only spend so much time with Media Matters without becoming nauseous) and NONE expose any substantive “deceptions”; NONE provide evidence that Planned Parenthood is being accused of anything they are not actually doing.
How about something to actually defend their actions rather than whining about the method of exposure? Explain what part of this constitutes a “scam”?
Planned Parenthood kills living human beings, rips them apart and sells the parts. They time the procedures so as to increase profits. End of debate, settled science, over and out. If you can come to terms with the amorality of defending such activities, surely you can live with the facts.
Absolutely right, Bill.
But beside the obvious women’s individual procedures so as to get the right age parts Planned parenthood admitted to changing their procedures so as to endanger the woman more in hopes of getting better parts out of her.
That is patently illegal.
Lying to women about when they could be scheduled for a procedure until they hit 20 or more weeks is also very dangerous to the mother as well as bordering on illegal depending on the state.
Have to love the way the left thinks. This is the group of people who call our combat Veterans baby killers and abortionists like PP healthcare professionals.
@Mully, #5:
Who brainwashed you into believing that all media sources presenting information contradicting the approved cult dogma are propaganda outlets?
It’s not where information is presented that matters, it’s the validity of the information itself. In this case, edited and unedited transcripts are being presented for comparison, to illustrated the nature of deceptive editing.
You’re being lied to. Do you like being lied to?
That’s a complete distortion of the reality; essentially, it’s the essence of the lie that Center For Medical Progress—their name itself being a lie—has crafted a deceptively edited video to sell.
Here’s a different truth for you: People such as yourself—who claim to dislike overreaching government and to value Constitutionally guaranteed individual rights and freedoms—are demanding that women’s sovereign authority over their own bodies and their own reproductive function be taken from them and transferred to the State. The basis for this demand apparently lies in your particular religious beliefs concerning when a developing fetus becomes a person—no matter that the Bible doesn’t speak on the point, and no matter that the Constitution and Bill of Rights restrain government from backing or promoting particular sectarian or denominational views with the force of law.
@Greg:
What a load of fetid pro-PP butcher propaganda, Greg.
The very first quote you present from your Media Matters link infers that the 8 minutes cut between the 2 CMP posted cuts leaves out some sort of exculpatory explanation from the PP physician (yet the entire footage was posted online) as if the PP doctor was not discussing altering the manner of abortion to obtain a more saleable sample of tissue. Then the propaganda piece tries to throw out regulatory language to falsely claim that it is ok for PP to alter the method of killing the fetus – even though the regulatory language clearly states the method cannot be altered for the purpose of obtaining “better” samples.
The propaganda piece also makes the ridiculous claim that PP is not trying to profit off the sale of fetal organs, in spite of the 2nd video where the PP medical school graduate jokes about wanting to buy a Lamborghini while discussing financial compensation for obtaining fetal organs and tissues for sale. If they aren’t looking to make a profit from such sales, how is the butcher planning on making enough money for a $200,000+ luxury vehicle?
The bogus “heavily edited” defense is about as valid as Hillary’s ridiculous excuses for her illegal server.
@Greg:
Baloney.
Medical science has demonstrated conclusively that the fetus is most certainly NOT “the woman’s body”, but is a completely separate entity with a unique, different set of DNA that is WITHIN the woman’s body, but not a part of it. That isn’t a religious position. Of course the fetus is dependent on the woman’s body to continue on the path of the human life cycle, but show me a single term infant that escapes the womb without being killed that is not dependent on another adult human for feeding, removal of biological waste products, and environment/temperature support. Differentiating the right to not be killed based solely on the deveolopmental stage of the human life cycle is, in the pro-abortion mindset, based solely on the “convenience” of those who have already escaped the womb. Such a view is inherently selfish, evil, and dehumanizing, irrespective of one’s religious position.
It is an easy, but flawed, debate tactic to falsely claim that opposition to the vicious brutality of abortion is based only on religious belief, unless you can produce a single instance of any adult human coming into existence without having gone through the scientifically discovered steps of the in utero stages of the human life cycle.
@Greg:
OK, Greg, please explain what “the reality” (as you see it) is and how it differs from how the videos presents it.
No, Greg. No, we aren’t. In fact, quite the opposite; the FAR opposite. We feel government should play NO part in women’s reproductive business, up to and including financing it. Further, the government should not be inserting itself (so to speak) into that realm by inventing convenient redefinitions in order to justify abortion and its subsidy.
YOUR kind wants the government in everyone’s business, squeezing money out of taxpayers to pay for their vision of how women should lead their lives. If a woman wants an abortion, fine; leave me (and my money) completely out of it. However, for as long as murder is illegal, viable babies should not be massacred for business profit and CERTAINLY no taxpayer should be forced to aid and abet such a despicable crime.
The only thing that can compete with the despicable nature of the act is the despicable act of defending it.
@Pete, #12:
DNA is the medium that holds a person’s genetic code, not the actual person. While it might be unique—except for cloned organisms or genetically identical twins—it’s no more a person itself than the instructions for building a battleship are an actual battleship.
@Bill, #13:
So, the pro-life crowd would be perfectly alright with allowing access to legal abortion services entirely at the discretion of the woman herself, provided taxpayer money was in no way connected with the clinics or providers?
Look at Kansas.
Turns out it is Obama who is cutting off ALL family planning clinics’ federal funds in that state rather than allow other family planning clinics than Planned Parenthood to get a penny of taxpayer money!
There are maps of all the family planning clinics showing that Planned Parenthood would not be missed at all if it disappeared tomorrow.
But when petty Obama defunds all the others just because a state wants to defund Planned Parenthood he is the one hurting women.
@Greg:
Utterly farsical comparison. Name a single battleship that ever constructed itself, or has ever progressed in its “life cycle” to the sentience of which you have expressed such enamorment.
What part of the fetus contains the mother’s DNA, Greg? You might have a scientifically based position, rather than the bloodthirsty “convenience” position if the fetus resulted from hydra-like budding from the mother, having the exact same DNA as the fetus, with the fetus growing directly from the mother’s tissues. But you (should) know the fetus is completely separate from the mother’s body, with the placenta serving as a metabolic, fluid and nutrient interface between the mother’s body and the fetal body. That is the biological, scientific fact of.the human life cycle. The fetus is not going to develop into a pencil, a fern, or a battleship. Again, dehumanizing the human fetus belies the fact that every single human who is walking around has escaped a uterus without being a victim of abortion. They did not spring into existence from a set of mechanical engineering drawings like the battleship in your example, or from any other process than the fertilization of an ovum that begins the human life cycle.
@Pete, #17:
We should confer the same rights that living human persons have onto yet to be realized possibilities? The rights of a potential person outweigh the rights of a woman who already exists? I’m afraid I can’t follow the logic. If we accept this sort of reasoning, it could next be argued that birth control is an unacceptable level of interference.
Greggie Goebbels (the mouthpiece of the radical left) wants to blather on about “personhood” while supporting inhumanity.
Typical left wingers. SICK, SICK, SICK.
@Greg:
Obviously you prefer to be LIED to. Since you didn’t bother to read the information at the link I provided. You also didn’t look into your own story claiming to show edited and out of context video. So If you can stomach it here’s 2 full hours of unedited video.
Ever watch 60 minutes or NBC’s Dateline, PBS Frontline, or ABC’s 20/20? Well they all use EDITED video. Can you figure it out from there?
@Pete: All that time and money you spent on med school to become a doctor and Greg still knows more than you about medical issues and biology. You should have just paid him to educate you and saved yourself a lot of time and money.
@Greg:#10
“are demanding that women’s sovereign authority over their own bodies and their own reproductive function be taken from them and transferred to the State.”
It has been done throughout history.
Prostitution is illegal in most places.
Vaccines are required by law.
Public nudity is illegal in most places.
Suicide is illegal.
And many, many more.
Not that I agree with them, but there they are.
I ask you again…
Why is it that every right that is specifically recognized in, and protected by, the Constitution is limited in some way, but a woman’s “right” to hire someone to murder her unborn child is sacrosanct, and must not be limited in any way?
@Greg:
Greg, the “potential personhood” argument is just another arbitrary delineation made up by pro-abortionists to justify the killing of humans that are inconvenient to the pro-abortionists. Following the thought process you are promoting – that the rights of the pregnant woman outweigh the rights of the human fetus – you are walking right in step with Peter Singer’s position on parents having the right to terminate infants through the neonatal period. It is also the same philosophy that falsely justified slavery in the antebellum US (and throughout most of human history, until white Christians from Europe and the US began agitating against it), the treatment of Jews under the Nazis, and the current brutality by ISIS against non-muslims.
The “potential personhood” standard of eligibility for the right not to be killed is a very slippery slope upon which to make a stand. You still have not made a coherent argument explaining when potential personhood begins. What one is at 1 month of age is vastly different from what one is at 5 years, 12 years, 21 years, 40 years, and 80 years of age, yet at all ages an individual is the same biological entity simply moving along the continuum of his or her life cycle. Pro-abortionists insist on denying the portion of the human life cycle that normally occurs in utero by whatever means necessary to continue the bloody sacrifices on the secular altar of selfish convenience.
But back to your specific point regarding the right of the pregnant woman versus the right of the human fetus not to be killed – implying that birth control would be “an unacceptable level of interference” – I have to give you credit for at least admitting (however inadvertently) to the implication that recognizing the reality of the human life cycle destroys any semblance of abortion as being anything other than killing a human life.
@another vet:
LOL..well…might have saved money in the short run, but if I followed that reasoning I’d probably be on welfare and pondering in between tokes which marxist running on the democrat ticket would increase my allotment of government cheese the most….
@Greg:
In situations where the mother’s life is in jeopardy, the mother’s life takes precedence. However, in cases where there are two lives to consider and weigh, some considered thought should take place, other than proclaiming the offending life “a worthless blob”.
Meanwhile, while the left declares (purely out of personal convenience) that life begins when it is decided it is convenient (or, the alternative is no longer as profitable) they simultaneously oppose the execution of brutal murderers out of “compassion” and “respect for life”. Nothing a liberal does is logical or consistent.
@Mully, #20:
Most videos of any length that are intended for public presentation are edited. There’s nothing at all wrong with editing in and of itself. There is something wrong, however, when it is done to purposefully deceive.
Center for Medical Progress is nothing more than a smear operation similar to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. “Progress” has as much to do with the first as “Truth” has to do with the second. Both were put together to promulgate lies. They serve no other purpose. Their very names are lies.
@Bill:
Lives are not the issue. Persons are what have rights that demand consideration, not lives. “Lives” is a vague term that is being conflated with “persons” to further your argument. Mosquitoes have lives.
You want a very important assumption upon which everything else turns to be granted without too much examination, or preferably without any examination at all: namely, that a fetus is in fact a person, by definition.
Based on what? DNA may be unique to a person, but it is not the person until it has been fully expressed and awareness has emerged. It is only a bit of genetic code that makes such a thing possible. Human shape is not itself a person. That the shape moves or has a heartbeat does not make it a person. Only the emergence of sentience and human awareness indicate the presence of a person. Prior to that point, there is only the possibility.
@Greg:
Exactly. The little feckers should fend for themselves. Until they can do that, those nasty little foetuses should STFU (of course they can’t say anything, that’s the point)
@Greg:
I can’t help but notice that even though the question has been asked numerous times, no liberal defending Planned Parenthood’s barbarity has yet provided a single instance of some substantive, point-altering editing. Nothing. Will this soon be forthcoming?
Something like MSNBC deleting the point where the 911 operated asked Zimmerman if he could determine the race of the person he reported skulking around his neighborhood. That changes the entire character of the exchange. Get it, sort of? Just editing out dead air or walking around changes nothing. See what you can get us, Greg.
So, if it suits, to you a person with a face, heartbeat, fingerprints, emotions and reactions… one that could survive outside the womb… are mosquitoes that should be swatted?
Continually silly and weak. Getting more silly and much weaker.
People can compare the edited and unedited transcripts for themselves. They don’t need to have the significance of the omissions explained to them.
We’ll see how weak and silly this all becomes if republicans settle on an outspoken anti-choice presidential candidate. Most likely the republican nominee will quickly shut up on the topic the moment nomination is secured. Trump would probably backpedal yet again.
@Greg:
Well, let’s see, then, Greggie Goebbels; between 8 and 12 weeks an unborn baby (no, it’s not just a glob of cells) and hear and will react to it’s mother’s voice, loud noises like dogs barking or a car backfiring and can even begin to recognize it’s father’s voice. By four months (12-16 weeks) an unborn baby begins to see light. By 20 weeks, it can feel pain.
So that kinda blows your “awareness” argument out of the water, doesn’t it since by 20 weeks gestation, a baby hears, sees and feels pain, and if that is not aware, I don’t know what is.
But you will come up with some way to justifying shoving a Metzenbaum scissors in the back of a baby’s skull to kill it, or vacumn it out piece by piece, arm by leg, by head, because having a baby is just too damned inconvenient for the child’s mother.
What kind of low life form are you, Greggie Goebbels, that you can support killing a human being?
@Greg:
Which rises the question: have you watched the entire, unedited, videos that are there for the watching? Have you, Greggie? And if you did, which I doubt, did you enjoy seeing the tiny arms and legs laying in a stainless tray being picked apart for an example of what was being offered for sale? Did you, Greggie?
There is a special place in Hell for people like you, Greg. You and Cecile Richardson along with her heroine, Margaret Sanger.
@Greg:
Yes, Greg, we get the flawed logic of the position you continue to espouse, yet you continue to dodge the very important question your position brings up, which is defining the moment sentience begins. Whether you will ever admit (or even address the point) you are absolutely arguing in support of Singer’s idea that parents have the right to terminate a neonate by their whim. In other words, when does sentience occur in the human life cycle? Parsing even further along the lines you seem to be supporting, what level of sentience equates to the right to life? When one can crawl? Walking? With the ability to produce coherent speech? Acquiring the ability to read and write?
If you claim to disagree with Singer’s infanticide position, since the infant is no longer in the womb, are you saying exiting the womb equates to sentience? If so, then the infants born prematurely at 23 weeks, which gasp for breath, move their limbs and open their eyes – which I work on almost daily – do you consider them sentient? Are they not worthy of medical support to assist them in living? If they are, then what makes them more worthy of the right to live than same aged fetal cousins who are still in the womb? Should all neonatologists stop trying to save infants born preterm?
This is the problem with the selfish arbitrary line insisted on by abortionists. The right to continue on the human life cycle is totally at the whim of the abortion supporter, and totally out of sync with the scientific reality of the beginning of the human life cycle. The only way the abortionist can support fetal termination is to construct an artificial justification that denies the inherent humanity of the fetus.
@retire05, #32:
Who the hell are you to pretend an authority make such comparisons or pronouncements? Your comments are as morally uplifting and insightful as those coming from the Westboro Baptist Church.
@Greg:
I hold First Amendment rights, in case you haven’t noticed. And I am intelligent enough to know scum when I see it, and you are scum.
But being the weasel you are, you refuse to respond to Pete’s posts to you. That is because you have no moral compass, Greggie Goebbels. Are you are is a mouthpiece for the far left that takes pleasure in killing black babies, primarily.
50% of all pregnancies in black women in New York end in abortion. Does that give you a thrill up your leg?
You justify the ending of life using the same, tired excuses that Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Guevera used. The words may be different, but the justification is the same.
So, smart boy, why don’t you answer Pete’s question: Parsing even further along the lines you seem to be supporting, what level of sentience equates to the right to life?
Not that I expect a coward like you to answer. You are like the kid who throws shite at a neighbor’s house and then runs thinking you are so smart that no one knows what an absolute fool, and idiot, you are.
add: since you decided to add to your post to me, I have decided to add this: if comparison to the evilness that is Westboro Baptist Church is all you’ve got, I suggest you climb back into your pit.
You continue to show you’re not intelligent, you’re just a parrot spewing the words you glean from other leftist scum.
I try not to lose my temper with those who appear to suffer from personality disorders. Sometimes that involves ceasing to pay them the attention that they seek. I’ve been to that point before with you. Unfortunately you haven’t changed a bit, so here we are again. It’s not your opinions I have trouble with. It’s your hatred.
@Greg:
So, you are now portraying yourself as the epitome of high moral standards? That’s probably the funniest thing you have ever said.
Oh, there’s that ever convenient “hate” word that you liberals love to throw out with such abandon. Well, here is a shocker for you: I’m honest enough to admit that I have learned to hate the opinions of scum like you. You are the antithesis of everything that is good this nation was built on. You are dishonest to the core. You simply parrot those things that you read on trash websites like Salon, Huffington Post and DailyKos. You are incapable of original thought.
And judging by the number of times a day you post here, you also have no life.
If you wanted to prove you actually have a spine, you would answer Pete’s question. But you won’t because you have no spine.
The crux of the issue brought up by the CMP videos isn’t just the barbarity of the termination of the human fetus, but the compounding of the act by the added evil of altering the abortion process for the purpose of obtaining human fetal organs that can be sold for profit, which is illegal, unethical, and ghoulish. These videos have not been edited to deceptively put the words into the mouths of the PP butchers as they haggle over prices while “joking” about wanting a Lamborghini. The inhuman callousness displayed while discussing the acquisition of fetal body parts for sale, while chomping over dinner and drinking wine, has not been made more gruesome via any kind of editing process.
Organ donation is very tightly controlled with prohibition on the sale of organs for transplant acquired from those determined to be brain dead (and hence no longer sentient). People cannot legally sell their organs for donation. Family members of the brain dead are not paid for organs obtained from their non-sentient, brain dead relatives. Physicians are not paid “line item” for each separate organ they obtain from brain dead organ donors. Yet PP butchers are seen on at least 2 of the 8 videos discussing selling fetal organs separately to make more money from the remains of the abortion victim, while in the room with the fetal remains. This is horrific beyond description. There are no ethics that justify such Mengelian behavior. No editing changes the reality of what is seen in the “line item” conversation by the PP butchers.
Don’t lose sight of the compounding evil of what is shown in the videos beyond the brutal act of the abortion.
@Pete, #38:
Mary Gatter’s comments in the context of the full transcript makes it clear that she isn’t going for alteration of the process for the purposes of obtaining better specimens, despite being pressured on that point by the phony specimens procurement representative. Beginning on page 12 of 26:
Did we get that? Gatter just politely pointed out—too politely, perhaps—that the “buyer” is offering money in return for unethical behavior. She refuses to discuss it.
The transcript also makes it clear that Planned Parenthood refuses to profit from providing medical specimens. She clearly states that all Planned Parenthood wants is to cover any additional costs they incur. On page 10 of 26:
Gatter’s only concern is for recovering any additional costs that are associated with the procurement of specimen material for research. If the Devil is present in this discussion, it would appear to be in the person of the “Buyer.”
@Greg:
In the transcript you quote, Gatter refers to concerns over alteration of the abortion process in order to get “better specimens” as a specious argument.
She offers 75 dollars, then later says she was going to say 50, which makes no sense when she later says she isn’t trying to make money off selling aborted fetal remains.
This snippet of yours does nothing to refute the third PP butcher discussing selling the remains of an abortion victim piecemeal (“line item”) to make more money.
@Greg:
Yes, they can. Yes, they have. We have seen the best the left has to offer… “the videos were sneaky”. This is your defense of ripping human bodies apart for sale. Enjoy Hell… send us a postcard.
Oh… I’m sorry, but I seem to have missed the part where she refused to do it. Help, please? As your transcript clearly shows, she went right ahead and negotiated a price for exactly what the actor was requesting, right OR wrong. If they weren’t in it for the money, they would not be accepting money to sell another person’s body parts.
Next, you can explain how opposition to dismembering babies so the parts can be sold (or, sometimes, selling the complete assembly) equates to an attack on women’s choice. The fact that you (and the rest of the left) go there only exposes the weakness of your defense of Planned Parenthood.
@retire05:
No leftist dares answer that question for that would then limit their access to a means to erase the product of their irresponsibility. Liberals will abide NO restrictions on THEIR freedoms and that results in restriction and destruction of the rights of others… which, of course, liberals have NO issue with, even when it results in death.
You’re all determined to accept a deceptively edited video as evidence of what you want to believe about Planned Parenthood.
This should be no surprise. It’s the same repeating pattern with everything. Once an officially approved attitude or belief is acquired it is seldom abandoned. Any story or spin that supports the belief is readily accepted without close examination. All contrary arguments and evidence are rejected, and anyone who voices them becomes an enemy.
A point at which clear evidence can be found that sentience actually exists might be a logical place to first consider imposing certain restrictions. That would be a point at which a level of measurable brain activity can be observed that corresponds to more than purely reflexive responses to external stimuli. Reflexive responses alone don’t demonstrate sentience or self awareness. Reflexive responses don’t make a person.
In general, protecting the life of the mother should take precedence over all other considerations at all points, in my opinion. The mother may decide otherwise. If she’s capable of thoughtful deliberation, that’s her prerogative.
Clear enough?
@Greg:
Again, neither you nor any other ghoulish supporter of Planned Parenthood has shown one shred of an example (what was it… a “smidgen”) of the video showing anything but what was actually going on.
Furthermore, how does the left, which squawls like a scalded pig over a flag, reconcile the fact that Planned Parenthood is based on and steeped in the concept of wiping out a race of people its founder considered unworthy of life?
@Bill, #43:
I have the evidence of the two transcripts and of my own analytical abilities, which allow me to make a comparison between the two and draw my own conclusions.
What I observe is a deceitful “buyer” backed by a unscrupulous organization doing everything possible to lure a Planned Parenthood representative into making damaging remarks or accepting unethical suggestions, and Planned Parenthood representative who is simply refusing to talk about it.
What I also observe is manipulative editing and a subsequent spin campaign attempting to create exactly the opposite impression.
And if anyone is ghoulish, it’s the twisted people who display graphic photographs of aborted fetuses for their useful shock value. The indecency of this sort of lurid political exploitation goes far beyond any that might be involved in the conduct of legitimate, potentially life-saving research on human tissue samples that would otherwise be discarded.
@Greg:
Your analytical abilities consist of what you are told to believe and your conclusions are what you ideologically must qualify. Nothing more. It is plain and clear what Planned Parenthood has been doing and simply screaming, “EDITING!!” makes no difference to the substance of the claims.
@Bill, #45:
I arrive at my own conclusions. The intention of the smear operation is obvious, the deceptive editing is obvious, and anyone able to think for themselves can figure that out for themselves. They don’t need you or me or some bogus, bullshit outfit such as the so-called Center for Medical Progress to do their thinking for them.
I wouldn’t give a doodly damn about their efforts at deception, if their goal wasn’t to deprive people who disagree with their views of sovereign authority and control over their own bodies, and to assign that control to the State. That’s simply unacceptable.
@Greg:
And yet, you say you have watched the unedited videos, but to stick with your mantra you must continue to accuse others of only watching the edited videos, which were primarily shown on tv and on blogs.
More of your shell games.
Your admission of having at least read the transcripts of the unedited videos:
Which causes one to wonder; why didn’t you just watch the unedited videos? Why did you go to the trouble of reading only the transcripts? Is it because if you watch them, in lieu of reading transcripts, you would have to actually view the handling of the body parts of dead babies?
By that benchmark, we should have the right to kill those who suffer from advanced Alzheimer’s Disease, since those patients do not fit with your definition of sentient.
You are trying to paint a scenario by which someone you (certainly a biased observer) believe that the “buyer” has such control over the PP representatives that the representatives can be “lured” into telling falsehoods. You really are of the opinion that fellow Americans are stupid, aren’t you?
Well then, perhaps we should chastise all those twisted people who displayed the graphic photographs of the German concentration camp victims that used them for their shock value to political exploit the Nazis.
What “potential” life-saving techniques? With that statement, you are saying that life that managed to escape the abortionist’s scalpel is more important than future life.
Sure you do, but then we know that you are not an honest broker of truth.
@Greg:
Wait….in your analytical mind it is more.ghoulish to show pictures of the result of abortion – for the purpose of trying to stop such barbarity – than to actually commit the act of.abortion?
Quite an “interesting” bit of analysis there…..
@Greg:
This is an example of taking an issue out of context in an attempt to try to defend the indefensible.
You want to measure brainwave activity to determine sentience. In a static clinical situation, with regard to a human life cycle, that could be reasonable. An individual who has neurologically matured, then suffered an injury which permanently damages the brain such that recovery of sentience is not possible, would be fairly evaluated by such brainwave measurement. But in the context of the fetal stage of the human life cycle, requiring the fetus to have an EEG pattern consistent with a certain level of sentience ignores the fact that the fetus, if left unharmed, is in the stage of the human life cycle which is neurologically progressing. This is a process which continues throughout the individual’s life cycle, absent an externally originated injury. This issue is not fully dealt with outside of the context of the scientifically known human life cycle. Who gets to decide the level of sentience that equates to a right to not be terminated? Pro-aborts are still.arguing for a level of sentience that justifies termination based on the convenience of those already safely outside the womb.
The brainwave pattern of a 23 or 24 week premature infant are known to be dysmature. Following your argument, Greg, it should be perfectly reasonable to terminate such infants. But in the context of the human life cycle, the brainwave patterns of these 23-24 week premies continue to mature, absent any neurologic injury. Thankfully, society has not devolved to the ethical abyss that your out of context brainwave sentience argument posits, as we work to save such fragile humans.
The ethical, rational position based on the knowledge of the human life cycle clearly indicates that life begins at conception, and should be protected from that point. It is absolutely unethical and totally selfish to attempt construction of arbitrary points of eligibilty for the right to life that are based solely on the convenience of those already safely along the same human life cycle outside the womb. Haggling over payment amounts for harvested human organs only adds to the evil barbarity.
@Greg:
Sure, your own independently arrived upon, free thinking opinion which only coincidentally parrots the widespread liberal response… “EDITS!! EDITS!!” Somehow, like with the telegraph vine, excuses spread across the liberal organism like a virus and gets simultaneously voiced through all outlets. Sure.
Planned Parenthood could not be effectively smeared if they were not smearing the tissue of babies across the nation. They could not have been exposed unless their was exposure there.
The one and only activity targeted with these videos is the practice of selling tissue they just recently killed. If the “good” Planned Parenthood does is not jeopardized, whose responsibility is that? The people striking a blow for human life and dignity or those trying to make a buck off of dead baby livers?
Once again, I ask: from those who righteously protested the Confederate battle flag on the grounds that it represented racism, how is Planned Parenthood, an organization FOUNDED and FUNCTIONED with the purpose of wiping out races that the founded had deemed unworthy escaping the left’s campaign against all things racist? Are you ever planning on addressing this, with your “independent analysis”?