Is Planned Hamburger more important than the entire good of America?

[Rage Against the McKee]

republicans are very insistent about debate framing.

So are liberals, and in this case, the liberals clearly won. Three examples:

1. They have successfully pinned the blame for any "shutdown" squarely on the Republican Congress, contrary to all reason. If the Congress passed a bill completely funding the government except for $500 million to PP, and Obama vetoed that bill because he insists on funding PP, who is really more responsible for the "shutdown"? Obama, right? The GOP passed a bill funding all other areas of government, but Obama vetoed all that unrelated funding because he didn't get $500 million for the baby butchers. The GOP is so terrified of being blamed that they didn't even try it.

2. They have successfully introduced "shutdown" into the political vernacular - even amongst the GOP! - when, in fact, a "shutdown" doesn't actually shut down much of anything at all.

3. They have also successfully pushed the "clean bill" term for full funding - again, even the GOP now uses the term. Who doesn't like to be clean? A bill that funds everything except PP isn't "clean."

Granted, liberals have been aided tremendously by their accomplices in the MSM, but you still have to admire their messaging wizardry. George Orwell would be proud.

1. Ted Cruz has much more to do with this perception than any debate framing the democrats have done. He threatens to shut the government down constantly on a national stage.

2. A shutdown closes down pretty much every government office and adds long delays to anyone waiting on a permit, waiver, etc. to try to get a project started.

[star seed 7]

Weren't you the guy bitching that so much was shutdown during the last shutdown (that you fully supported) and now you say they don't even shut anything down?

 

[Yard Dog]

I'd like to know how accurate the numbers are the libs throw around about money lost during shutdowns. The amount sounds ludicrous, so I would have to guess they are including profits lost if workers went out to eat at a fine dining establishments or something.

[Yard Dog]

MSM conspiracy!! 

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/20/ideas-for-reporters-struggling-to-cover-planned-parenthood/

Using Nexis, I looked at a few media outlets to see how their coverage of the Confederate flag compared to the Planned Parenthood video. For my quick searches, I put in “Confederate” and “flag,” and “Planned Parenthood” and “video,” with the appropriate dates. My search of the media companies’ web sites showed higher counts for one or the other entry than what showed up in Nexis, for what it’s worth. And for CNN, I modified “video” with “undercover.” What I found was most interesting, and goes a long way to show how the media can drum up interest in a story or work to suppress a story:

CNN has had 493 mentions of the Confederate flag since June 17 (only 188 of these even mention alleged church shooter Dylann Roof), and managed 167 in the first six days. In the first six days of the Planned Parenthood scandal, they managed 7 mentions, less than 5 percent what you’d expect if you considered those stories only of equal importance.

The Washington Post mentioned the Confederate flag 624 times in the last month (only 135 of these mention Roof), and 126 times in the first six days. The Washington Post has 28 stories mentioning the Planned Parenthood video in the first six days, just over 22 percent of what you’d expect if you considered the harvesting of organs from aborted babies to be merely as important as the Confederate flag topic.

The New York Times has run stories and essays on the Confederate flag 149 times since June 17 (and only 39 of those mention Roof), 41 of those in the first six days. That compares to three stories on Planned Parenthood during the same window, just 7 percent of what you’d expect if the New York Times considered those stories merely of equal importance.

Finally, Nexis shows 70 mentions of the Confederate flag on Politico.com in the last month (only 18 mention Roof), 29 of those in the first six days of the story. For the Planned Parenthood video, it shows 4 stories.

[sys]

So are liberals, and in this case, the liberals clearly won. Three examples:

1. They have successfully pinned the blame for any "shutdown" squarely on the Republican Congress, contrary to all reason. If the Congress passed a bill completely funding the government except for $500 million to PP, and Obama vetoed that bill because he insists on funding PP, who is really more responsible for the "shutdown"? Obama, right? The GOP passed a bill funding all other areas of government, but Obama vetoed all that unrelated funding because he didn't get $500 million for the baby butchers. The GOP is so terrified of being blamed that they didn't even try it.

2. They have successfully introduced "shutdown" into the political vernacular - even amongst the GOP! - when, in fact, a "shutdown" doesn't actually shut down much of anything at all.

3. They have also successfully pushed the "clean bill" term for full funding - again, even the GOP now uses the term. Who doesn't like to be clean? A bill that funds everything except PP isn't "clean."

Granted, liberals have been aided tremendously by their accomplices in the MSM, but you still have to admire their messaging wizardry. George Orwell would be proud.

it's funny because you believe what you wrote.

[sys]

I'd like to know how accurate the numbers are the libs throw around about money lost during shutdowns. The amount sounds ludicrous, so I would have to guess they are including profits lost if workers went out to eat at a fine dining establishments or something.

let us know the results of your investigation, yardsie.

[8manpick]

Does anyone actually oppose selling non-living body parts (fetuses, stillborn babies, old people, whatever) for medical research?  If so, why?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Does anyone actually oppose selling non-living body parts (fetuses, stillborn babies, old people, whatever) for medical research?  If so, why?

I oppose selling organs for profit, and I oppose altering abortion techniques so as to more effectively harvest organs.

[mocat]

So are liberals, and in this case, the liberals clearly won. Three examples:

1. They have successfully pinned the blame for any "shutdown" squarely on the Republican Congress, contrary to all reason. If the Congress passed a bill completely funding the government except for $500 million to PP, and Obama vetoed that bill because he insists on funding PP, who is really more responsible for the "shutdown"? Obama, right? The GOP passed a bill funding all other areas of government, but Obama vetoed all that unrelated funding because he didn't get $500 million for the baby butchers. The GOP is so terrified of being blamed that they didn't even try it.

2. They have successfully introduced "shutdown" into the political vernacular - even amongst the GOP! - when, in fact, a "shutdown" doesn't actually shut down much of anything at all.

3. They have also successfully pushed the "clean bill" term for full funding - again, even the GOP now uses the term. Who doesn't like to be clean? A bill that funds everything except PP isn't "clean."

Granted, liberals have been aided tremendously by their accomplices in the MSM, but you still have to admire their messaging wizardry. George Orwell would be proud.

it's funny because you believe what you wrote.

this is too much right here

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Weren't you the guy bitching that so much was shutdown during the last shutdown (that you fully supported) and now you say they don't even shut anything down?

 

I'm pretty sure you're thinking of someone else, lib7. My only complaint was that Obama was actually spending greater resources "shutting down" things like open air monuments and scenic viewpoints.

[Yard Dog]

Does anyone actually oppose selling non-living body parts (fetuses, stillborn babies, old people, whatever) for medical research?  If so, why?

I think it is more about profiting off of the baby parts, not just the selling. The worry is that if a corporation made profit off of this practice, they would abuse their influence in an attempt to garner more business. So you have a clinic that wants to help women "make the right choice" pushing for abortion to help their bottom line.

This also leads to selling human tissue in general. If it's ok to sell non-living baby parts, why not sell non-living adult parts? If this happens you would see organ donation turn into organ profiteering. Dying and need a heart transplant? You just owe Amazon Prime's body part division $10,000,000. Oh you are poor? Tough luck.

[michigancat]

Does anyone actually oppose selling non-living body parts (fetuses, stillborn babies, old people, whatever) for medical research?  If so, why?

I think it is more about profiting off of the baby parts, not just the selling. The worry is that if a corporation made profit off of this practice, they would abuse their influence in an attempt to garner more business. So you have a clinic that wants to help women "make the right choice" pushing for abortion to help their bottom line.

This also leads to selling human tissue in general. If it's ok to sell non-living baby parts, why not sell non-living adult parts? If this happens you would see organ donation turn into organ profiteering. Dying and need a heart transplant? You just owe Amazon Prime's body part division $10,000,000. Oh you are poor? Tough luck.

free market?

[mocat]

the "for profit" part seems to be what ksuw disapproves of the most. has there been any evidence of this? oh and covering the S&H doesn't count as profit

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

So are liberals, and in this case, the liberals clearly won. Three examples:

1. They have successfully pinned the blame for any "shutdown" squarely on the Republican Congress, contrary to all reason. If the Congress passed a bill completely funding the government except for $500 million to PP, and Obama vetoed that bill because he insists on funding PP, who is really more responsible for the "shutdown"? Obama, right? The GOP passed a bill funding all other areas of government, but Obama vetoed all that unrelated funding because he didn't get $500 million for the baby butchers. The GOP is so terrified of being blamed that they didn't even try it.

2. They have successfully introduced "shutdown" into the political vernacular - even amongst the GOP! - when, in fact, a "shutdown" doesn't actually shut down much of anything at all.

3. They have also successfully pushed the "clean bill" term for full funding - again, even the GOP now uses the term. Who doesn't like to be clean? A bill that funds everything except PP isn't "clean."

Granted, liberals have been aided tremendously by their accomplices in the MSM, but you still have to admire their messaging wizardry. George Orwell would be proud.

it's funny because you believe what you wrote.

this is too much right here

I'd be curious to know why you disagree, but let's start a new thread. http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=36135.0

[sys]

Does anyone actually oppose selling non-living body parts (fetuses, stillborn babies, old people, whatever) for medical research?  If so, why?

I think it is more about profiting off of the baby parts, not just the selling. The worry is that if a corporation made profit off of this practice, they would abuse their influence in an attempt to garner more business. So you have a clinic that wants to help women "make the right choice" pushing for abortion to help their bottom line.

This also leads to selling human tissue in general. If it's ok to sell non-living baby parts, why not sell non-living adult parts? If this happens you would see organ donation turn into organ profiteering. Dying and need a heart transplant? You just owe Amazon Prime's body part division $10,000,000. Oh you are poor? Tough luck.

free market?

slippery slope.

[8manpick]

Americans against profit. Sounds like we need socialized medicine and medical research.

[sys]

Americans against profit. Sounds like we need socialized medicine and medical research.

the govt is the only one we can trust with tissue and organ transfers.

[Yard Dog]

Americans against profit. Sounds like we need socialized medicine and medical research.

the govt is the only one we can trust with tissue and organ transfers.

That should be a part of being a citizen. Signing on the dotted line that our bodies belong to the Fed and in death will belong to the People. No more of this "opt in if you want" bs.

[star seed 7]

With you on the profit thing, but you lose me on the second thing. What difference does the technique make as long as it's medically safe for the aborter

[sys]

That should be a part of being a citizen. Signing on the dotted line that our bodies belong to the Fed and in death will belong to the People. No more of this "opt in if you want" bs.

what is good for the whole is good for the individual.

[star seed 7]

Americans against profit. Sounds like we need socialized medicine and medical research.

the govt is the only one we can trust with tissue and organ transfers.

That should be a part of being a citizen. Signing on the dotted line that our bodies belong to the Fed and in death will belong to the People. No more of this "opt in if you want" bs.

No big on religious rights I see

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

the "for profit" part seems to be what ksuw disapproves of the most. has there been any evidence of this? oh and covering the S&H doesn't count as profit

MoCat, have you ever sold something on ebay, or listened to an infomercial? Call in the next 5 minutes and we'll double you order of baby heads for FREE* Just pay separate shipping and handling. It's all a matter of semantics. Fees for shipping, handling, processing, etc. are a great way to make money, or as one Planned Parenthood exec said, "do a little better than break even."

Another comment was even more telling:

So Heather, a Novogenix person would come to the site, and our staff would sign the patients up, and get consent. Heather would look at the tissue and take what she required, so logistically it was very easy for us, we didn’t have to do anything. There was compensation for this, and there was discussion if that was legal, they have been paying by the case, and there was some discussion about do we, in a different way, or I don’t know what you’re used to doing, how you’re used to doing compensation.

Planned Parenthood didn't have to do anything. You know, except for palm the cash.

In fact, this is routinely what Planned Parenthood does - performing abortions in one room while the third-party tissue harvesters are in the very next room sifting through the remains. And yet, Planned Parenthood still gets their cut - I guess $500 million a year just isn't enough.

[sys]

what if the federal govt. kicked in another 500 billion, but then pp agreed not to accept any compensation for making tissue available to researchers?  would that make everyone happy?

[mocat]

the "for profit" part seems to be what ksuw disapproves of the most. has there been any evidence of this? oh and covering the S&H doesn't count as profit

MoCat, have you ever sold something on ebay, or listened to an infomercial? Call in the next 5 minutes and we'll double you order of baby heads for FREE* Just pay separate shipping and handling. It's all a matter of semantics. Fees for shipping, handling, processing, etc. are a great way to make money, or as one Planned Parenthood exec said, "do a little better than break even."

Another comment was even more telling:

So Heather, a Novogenix person would come to the site, and our staff would sign the patients up, and get consent. Heather would look at the tissue and take what she required, so logistically it was very easy for us, we didn’t have to do anything. There was compensation for this, and there was discussion if that was legal, they have been paying by the case, and there was some discussion about do we, in a different way, or I don’t know what you’re used to doing, how you’re used to doing compensation.

Planned Parenthood didn't have to do anything. You know, except for palm the cash.

In fact, this is routinely what Planned Parenthood does - performing abortions in one room while the third-party tissue harvesters are in the very next room sifting through the remains. And yet, Planned Parenthood still gets their cut - I guess $500 million a year just isn't enough.

so it is just the S&H then? i mean you made it sound like they were charging an arm and a leg for arms and legs

[Mrs. Gooch]

Does anyone actually oppose selling non-living body parts (fetuses, stillborn babies, old people, whatever) for medical research?  If so, why?

According to my boss, they harvested a bunch of stem cells or whatever about 35 years ago and they have been growing (multiplying) these cells in labs since then, so there should be no need to harvest more fetal tissue.