[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
Nice to see you Cortez.
[/quote]
Ditto… It’s been a while. I hope all is well with you. If you still have my email, give me a shout some time. If not, I should still have yours so I can send it to you again.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
But who is giving the consent to harvest these organs?[/quote]
The mother, when she signs the consent forms.
Couldn’t find the forms they use in Georgia, but in Texas at least, there are these clauses in the consent form:
"I give my permission to this doctor and such other associates, technical assistants, and other health providers as the doctor thinks is needed to perform the abortion on me using the surgical and medical procedures checked above.
“I give my permission to my physician and such associates, technical assistants and other health care providers to perform such other procedures that are advisable in their professional judgment.”
(emphasis mine)
Harvesting fetal tissue for transplantation probably falls within the purview of “such other procedures”.
[/quote]
That’s really vague. I don’t think one can say that counts for consent to harvest their baby’s organs. Of course I am not a lawyer but such language would hardly count as full disclosure.
Secondly, there was no indication that these organs were harvested for transplantation.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
How is this appreciably different from pediatric organ donation using children who have managed to escape the birth canal?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/5/982.full
Consent? Of whom, the child? Absent in either case.
Consent of the parent? Present in both cases.
Is it the money involved? Would it make a difference if Planned Parenthood didn’t make a profit on the sale of fetal tissue?
Or is it just the tone of voice they use to talk about it all?
Yes, hearing these people talk as casually as they do about the disposition of postmortem fetal organs might be disturbing to some viewers, but just eavesdrop on a couple of surgeons sometime. Or a couple of soldiers. Amongst themselves, I assure you, there are no hushed tones of reverence when talking about dead bodies, even the ones they caused.[/quote]
So are you saying you support the practice? The fact that doctors can be coy or irreverent about the things they do, does not change what it is they are doing. Deciding which way you are going to kill the child, in order that you may preserve the tissue and organs for which you have ‘orders’ for doesn’t merely smack of irreverence.
In other circumstances, does preserving certain organs for transplantation change the manner in which a doctor treats somebody?
Again, do you support the practice?[/quote]
If a reckless or drunk driver hits and seriously injures a child, to the degree that the child could not be saved, I would not object if the child’s organs were removed and put into the body of another child who needed them. This does not mean that I support the practice of reckless or drunk driving. I don’t approve of killing children. Once they’re dead, however, I have no strong opinions about what is done with their bodies.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
But who is giving the consent to harvest these organs?[/quote]
The mother, when she signs the consent forms.
[/quote]
That probably isn’t necessary… hospitals and clinics have wide latitude for how they dispose of medical waste, and that is probably how the fetal remains are classified. Cancer cells are taken from patients and then used in research (Henrietta Lacks’ famous cells, for example) without obtaining specific permission.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
How is this appreciably different from pediatric organ donation using children who have managed to escape the birth canal?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/5/982.full
Consent? Of whom, the child? Absent in either case.
Consent of the parent? Present in both cases.
Is it the money involved? Would it make a difference if Planned Parenthood didn’t make a profit on the sale of fetal tissue?
Or is it just the tone of voice they use to talk about it all?
Yes, hearing these people talk as casually as they do about the disposition of postmortem fetal organs might be disturbing to some viewers, but just eavesdrop on a couple of surgeons sometime. Or a couple of soldiers. Amongst themselves, I assure you, there are no hushed tones of reverence when talking about dead bodies, even the ones they caused.[/quote]
So are you saying you support the practice? The fact that doctors can be coy or irreverent about the things they do, does not change what it is they are doing. Deciding which way you are going to kill the child, in order that you may preserve the tissue and organs for which you have ‘orders’ for doesn’t merely smack of irreverence.
In other circumstances, does preserving certain organs for transplantation change the manner in which a doctor treats somebody?
Again, do you support the practice?[/quote]
If a reckless or drunk driver hits and seriously injures a child, to the degree that the child could not be saved, I would not object if the child’s organs were removed and put into the body of another child who needed them. This does not mean that I support the practice of reckless or drunk driving. I don’t approve of killing children. Once they’re dead, however, I have no strong opinions about what is done with their bodies.[/quote]
I think a big part of the problem is that these children are being killed on purpose and in such a way that is abhorrent. Your drunk driver probably didn’t mean to kill the kid even though I think he deserves to rot for a long time. The intent wasn’t there. The mother walked in to planned parenthood with the intent to kill her child. The doctor put her latex gloves on with the intent to kill a child and in such a way that the organs could be sold.
I’m sort of at a loss. I really can’t believe this happens in America and people are okay with it.
A hot topic of late has been whether denying a cake to a gay couple is discriminatory. How is denying life not discriminatory? I just don’t get it. I don’t get any of this.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
A hot topic of late has been whether denying a cake to a gay couple is discriminatory. How is denying life not discriminatory? I just don’t get it. I don’t get any of this. [/quote]
Would that be age discrimination?
“So then you’re just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it?s not vertex, because when it’s vertex presentation, you never have enough dilation at the beginning of the case, unless you have real, huge amount of dilation to deliver an intact calvarium. So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.”
That’s fucking terrible.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
A hot topic of late has been whether denying a cake to a gay couple is discriminatory. How is denying life not discriminatory? I just don’t get it. I don’t get any of this. [/quote]
Would that be age discrimination?[/quote]
Sure, why not.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
But who is giving the consent to harvest these organs?[/quote]
The mother, when she signs the consent forms.
[/quote]
That probably isn’t necessary… hospitals and clinics have wide latitude for how they dispose of medical waste, and that is probably how the fetal remains are classified. Cancer cells are taken from patients and then used in research (Henrietta Lacks’ famous cells, for example) without obtaining specific permission.[/quote]
So, God forbid you have a child that dies, you don’t care if they harvest the child’s organs with out your consent or knowledge?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“So then you’re just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it?s not vertex, because when it’s vertex presentation, you never have enough dilation at the beginning of the case, unless you have real, huge amount of dilation to deliver an intact calvarium. So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.”
That’s fucking terrible. [/quote]
Amen
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
How is this appreciably different from pediatric organ donation using children who have managed to escape the birth canal?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/5/982.full
Consent? Of whom, the child? Absent in either case.
Consent of the parent? Present in both cases.
Is it the money involved? Would it make a difference if Planned Parenthood didn’t make a profit on the sale of fetal tissue?
Or is it just the tone of voice they use to talk about it all?
Yes, hearing these people talk as casually as they do about the disposition of postmortem fetal organs might be disturbing to some viewers, but just eavesdrop on a couple of surgeons sometime. Or a couple of soldiers. Amongst themselves, I assure you, there are no hushed tones of reverence when talking about dead bodies, even the ones they caused.[/quote]
So are you saying you support the practice? The fact that doctors can be coy or irreverent about the things they do, does not change what it is they are doing. Deciding which way you are going to kill the child, in order that you may preserve the tissue and organs for which you have ‘orders’ for doesn’t merely smack of irreverence.
In other circumstances, does preserving certain organs for transplantation change the manner in which a doctor treats somebody?
Again, do you support the practice?[/quote]
If a reckless or drunk driver hits and seriously injures a child, to the degree that the child could not be saved, I would not object if the child’s organs were removed and put into the body of another child who needed them. This does not mean that I support the practice of reckless or drunk driving. I don’t approve of killing children. Once they’re dead, however, I have no strong opinions about what is done with their bodies.[/quote]
I think a big part of the problem is that these children are being killed on purpose and in such a way that is abhorrent. Your drunk driver probably didn’t mean to kill the kid even though I think he deserves to rot for a long time. The intent wasn’t there. The mother walked in to planned parenthood with the intent to kill her child. The doctor put her latex gloves on with the intent to kill a child and in such a way that the organs could be sold.
I’m sort of at a loss. I really can’t believe this happens in America and people are okay with it.
A hot topic of late has been whether denying a cake to a gay couple is discriminatory. How is denying life not discriminatory? I just don’t get it. I don’t get any of this. [/quote]
I am with you. It’s just fucking sick.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
How is this appreciably different from pediatric organ donation using children who have managed to escape the birth canal?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/5/982.full
Consent? Of whom, the child? Absent in either case.
Consent of the parent? Present in both cases.
Is it the money involved? Would it make a difference if Planned Parenthood didn’t make a profit on the sale of fetal tissue?
Or is it just the tone of voice they use to talk about it all?
Yes, hearing these people talk as casually as they do about the disposition of postmortem fetal organs might be disturbing to some viewers, but just eavesdrop on a couple of surgeons sometime. Or a couple of soldiers. Amongst themselves, I assure you, there are no hushed tones of reverence when talking about dead bodies, even the ones they caused.[/quote]
So are you saying you support the practice? The fact that doctors can be coy or irreverent about the things they do, does not change what it is they are doing. Deciding which way you are going to kill the child, in order that you may preserve the tissue and organs for which you have ‘orders’ for doesn’t merely smack of irreverence.
In other circumstances, does preserving certain organs for transplantation change the manner in which a doctor treats somebody?
Again, do you support the practice?[/quote]
If a reckless or drunk driver hits and seriously injures a child, to the degree that the child could not be saved, I would not object if the child’s organs were removed and put into the body of another child who needed them. This does not mean that I support the practice of reckless or drunk driving. I don’t approve of killing children. Once they’re dead, however, I have no strong opinions about what is done with their bodies.[/quote]
You know the child at this point of gestation feels pain,right? Where the bitch puts her forceps very much matters to the kid who is about to be murdered. The least they could do is murder the child in a fashion where it’s not going to suffer. Not manipulate the child where it bests serves there organ harvesting not the best interests of the human being she is killing with her forceps. The child is not dead until they have determined the best way to harvest the organs they want to keep. It’s the difference between crushing the skull, or choosing a much slower method that greatly increases the suffering of the child. We treat our death row inmates with more compassion.
I am a little bit surprised this does not bother you. It’s pretty sick shit. One thing this video does, is blast the shiny veneer pro-abortionists try to put on abortion. We’re not talking about removing an organism, we’re talking about hearts, lungs, muscle etc. We’re talking about altering an already horrific practice to sustain a business.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
That probably isn’t necessary… hospitals and clinics have wide latitude for how they dispose of medical waste, and that is probably how the fetal remains are classified. [/quote]
Yeah like burning them as fuel for a furnace. Aborted Babies 'Burned to Heat NHS Hospitals'
The way that women just goes about eating, while talking about how she rips apart a partially birthed fetus to save organs so they can be sold. This should turn your stomach and tear at your soul, and if it doesn’t, nothing will.
[quote]pat wrote:
So, God forbid you have a child that dies, you don’t care if they harvest the child’s organs with out your consent or knowledge?[/quote]
I’m saying that the remains of the fetus, in the case of an elective abortion, are probably treated as medical waste. I’m not saying that dead babies are medical waste. My guess is that planned parenthood would give you the remains if you wanted to inter them, but women who are undergoing abortions probably do not want to think about the remains in many or most cases. By authorizing the facility to dispose of the remains, you are authorizing them to dispose of them in the manner they deem fit.
Anybody ever read freakonomics?
I’m not pro-abortion, though I’ve never truly cared one way or the other about it as a man (and subsequently not having to carry a child), but since abortion is legal, regardless of your feelings on the matter, what is so wrong with what they are doing? I’m not trying to be tricky here, I’m just wondering if the real issue is the abortion itself and not the disposition of the remains?
The fetus/baby whatever you want to call it, is destroyed/dead/not viable, so why shouldn’t the tissue be used for research that could potentially help others? Doesn’t that at least add some element of good to a situation that in the very best case scenario is probably neutral (removing unwanted tissue) and in the worst case scenario is straight up evil (baby murder)?
[quote]pat wrote:
You know the child at this point of gestation feels pain,right? [/quote]
At which point of gestation? After the 29th week, maybe, in which the abortion would be illegal in much of the United States, or if performed at all the mother would be administered a general anaesthetic for the procedure, which would in turn anaesthetise the fetus as well.
“Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.”
[quote]pat wrote:
I am a little bit surprised this does not bother you. [/quote]
It’s an unfortunate consequence of paying more attention to my thinky parts than to my feely parts, I suppose.
As Horace Walpole said, “The world is a comedy to those that think; a tragedy to those that feel.”
I prefer comedy.
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
I’m not pro-abortion, though I’ve never truly cared one way or the other about it as a man (and subsequently not having to carry a child), but since abortion is legal, regardless of your feelings on the matter, what is so wrong with what they are doing? I’m not trying to be tricky here, I’m just wondering if the real issue is the abortion itself and not the disposition of the remains?
The fetus/baby whatever you want to call it, is destroyed/dead/not viable, so why shouldn’t the tissue be used for research that could potentially help others? Doesn’t that at least add some element of good to a situation that in the very best case scenario is probably neutral (removing unwanted tissue) and in the worst case scenario is straight up evil (baby murder)?
[/quote]
Its just the abortion itself. Look at this thread and all the anti abortion folks who posted, things like this just give a reason to bring up the issue again, nobody really cares about the tissue stuff.