PP Organ Harvesting for Profit$$ - Page 3
The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Wildear
Retriever Coach
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 122

Thread: PP Organ Harvesting for Profit$$

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Halls, Tn.
    Posts
    3,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swliszka View Post
    DEL in 1993 the National Institute Revitalization Act prohibited the sale of fetal remains for money. However , money talks. A 3rd party bystander can be present to collect the remains and ship them off to buyers.The 3rd party rents the "space" collects from the "buyers" a collection/shipping fee, pays the clinic for space and business as usual. Fetal remains are used in current stem cell research for multiple conditions including Alzheimer, dementia and macular degeneration (eyes) . Hey how did Cheney jump to the front of the line to get his heart transplant? Where did it come from? Further you can buy kidneys and other body parts on the open/black market. Better make sure if you die , your mortician is ethical , because some lift the corneas out of corpses and sell them too. Who would guess?

    In short , we have "ethical laws" which are wink -wink violated all the time.
    Sw, I think that you are forgetting a very important issue. Assuming abortion is an ethical and legal procedure, one STILL would require that the procedure be done ethically and as humanely as possible. turning the fetus to be delivered SOLELY to preserve the body parts for harvesting and deviating from accepted procedure is UNETHICAL.

    Even today, as my classmates and I stood by the cadavers assigned to each of us, and received the lecture from our Gross Anatomy instructor, the reverence that was displayed. He talked of how these individuals had donated their bodies so that each of us might gain knowledge that would serve others. I think we all realized that we stood in a place of reference. That these people were giving us something that we could never repay. I do believe that any doctor who would subject a fetus to undue pain just to enhance the value of its harvested body parts, is a disgrace to the profession.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    RetrieverTraining.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #22
    Senior Member blind ambition's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Vancouver CANADA
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt McKenzie View Post
    Amen. I don't care what your political beliefs are or where you stand on the legality or morality of abortion. If you watch these videos and are not horrified, there is something wrong with your soul.
    I agree with you, but I also have the same reaction most graphic images of human(and animal) catastrophic trauma.
    I believe a woman has a right to choose whether she carries to term or aborts in the 1 trimester and support that position. On second and third trimester abortions my personal opinion is that there should be strong medical justifications. Having made that position clear, what is the moral/ethical balance between throwing out aborted fetal tissue and using it for science? To me, it seems a greater indignity to send it to the landfill rather than a medical lab, and so there is no conflict with the tissue being used for science.

    Now what about PP profiting by charging for the tissue? Well, the tissue is supplied by the woman having the abortion because she wants to be rid of her fetus, she does so without promise of payment, therefore there is no financial inducement for a woman to become pregnant and abort for financial gain which would be unethical IMO. PP is offering a legal service and is covering its costs through the sale of materials legally acquired, from this perspective there is nothing illegal or immoral/unethical about selling the tissue and there is strong evidence that the populace as a whole will benefit from the arrangement.
    I stress, these are only my opinions stating how I see the issue but I understand how divisive abortion is to the 41% of the populace who want the procedure abolished. For those I suspect that any reason to campaign against the procedure is legitimate and would hate Planned Parenthood regardless.
    My concurrence is so vigorous that elucidation becomes a challenge I must now, in the interest of time, shrink from.

    Roseberry



  4. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NE Iowa
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blind ambition View Post
    I agree with you, but I also have the same reaction most graphic images of human(and animal) catastrophic trauma.
    I believe a woman has a right to choose whether she carries to term or aborts in the 1 trimester and support that position. On second and third trimester abortions my personal opinion is that there should be strong medical justifications. Having made that position clear, what is the moral/ethical balance between throwing out aborted fetal tissue and using it for science? To me, it seems a greater indignity to send it to the landfill rather than a medical lab, and so there is no conflict with the tissue being used for science.

    Now what about PP profiting by charging for the tissue? Well, the tissue is supplied by the woman having the abortion because she wants to be rid of her fetus, she does so without promise of payment, therefore there is no financial inducement for a woman to become pregnant and abort for financial gain which would be unethical IMO. PP is offering a legal service and is covering its costs through the sale of materials legally acquired, from this perspective there is nothing illegal or immoral/unethical about selling the tissue and there is strong evidence that the populace as a whole will benefit from the arrangement.
    I stress, these are only my opinions stating how I see the issue but I understand how divisive abortion is to the 41% of the populace who want the procedure abolished. For those I suspect that any reason to campaign against the procedure is legitimate and would hate Planned Parenthood regardless.
    I don't agree with your position, but at least it follows some kind of logical progression. There are things that could be done for the greater good that just aren't okay, this is one of them. I won't give any reason, as it would only be my opinion, as you have yours. I will just say, I don't want to pay for it.

    This doesn't really apply to your post specifically BA, but I wonder if any of the proponents of this kind of thing have ever considered that the cure to many diseases and problems we face may indeed lie in aborted babies? Not in their organs sold for research, but in their minds or their destiny. Who knows what those babies would have brought to the world.

  5. Remove Advertisements
    RetrieverTraining.net
    Advertisements
     

  6. #24
    Senior Member 1tulip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    2,880

    Default

    When it comes to medical research, we aren't living in the wild, wild west. There actually is an ethical structure that has evolved over time.

    The Nuremberg trials and the evidence taken from Nazi records caused ethicists to decide that NO DATA TAKEN FROM SUCH STUDIES could be published or provide background for further studies. The data taken from the infamous high altitude hypoxia experiments made on Jewish prisoners during the war should not have been used. I actually don't think such data was needed nor would any reputable scientist admit that the data informed their research studies.

    The Tuskegee syphilis studies were also deemed unethical since black men were lied to and told they were being given treatments for their disease, when in fact they were not. The real purpose of the "study" was to document what the infection did to their bodies long term. From this incident we developed standards for informed consent which are very detailed and stringent.

    Currently, any medical research on humans (and/or their tissues) must be approved by a disinterested Institutional Review Board (IRB) which includes community members, lawyers, physicians and sometimes clergy. The main thing is that the IRB must be very diverse and dispassionate with no conflict of interest.

    Additionally, if anyone decides to donate tissue or otherwise participate in research, there can be no undue coercion. This is why they stopped testing experimental drugs on inmates. It could be argued that getting consent from a woman just prior to the abortion is improper due to their reasonable fear and state of emotional distress.

    So from any medical, ethical or legal standpoint , the practices of Planned Parenthood are unacceptable. I fully expect that these third party tissue procurement practices which convert human tissue into a commodity will eventually be stopped. It may be a watershed moment just like Tuskegee and Nuremberg. Only time will tell.

    AND... I haven't even touched on the federal laws specifically related to abortion clinics.

    What we're seeing in these videos is scientifically sloppy, unethical, and illegal. Not to mention gross and disgusting and repugnant. In terms of our standing in world opinion, late term abortion is a uniquely American evil. It isn't permitted in other first world countries.
    Last edited by 1tulip; 07-28-2015 at 07:50 PM.

  7. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Halls, Tn.
    Posts
    3,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1tulip View Post
    When it comes to medical research, we aren't living in the wild, wild west. There actually is an ethical structure that has evolved over time.

    The Nuremberg trials and the evidence taken from Nazi records caused ethicists to decide that NO DATA TAKEN FROM SUCH STUDIES could be published or provide background for further studies. The data taken from the infamous high altitude hypoxia experiments made on Jewish prisoners during the war should not have been used. I actually don't think such data was needed nor would any reputable scientist admit that the data informed their research studies.

    The Tuskegee syphilis studies were also deemed unethical since black men were lied to and told they were being given treatments for their disease, when in fact they were not. The real purpose of the "study" was to document what the infection did to their bodies long term. From this incident we developed standards for informed consent which are very detailed and stringent.

    Currently, any medical research on humans (and/or their tissues) must be approved by a disinterested Institutional Review Board (IRB) which includes community members, lawyers, physicians and sometimes clergy. The main thing is that the IRB must be very diverse and dispassionate with no conflict of interest.

    Additionally, if anyone decides to donate tissue or otherwise participate in research, there can be no undue coercion. This is why they stopped testing experimental drugs on inmates. It could be argued that getting consent from a woman just prior to the abortion is improper due to their reasonable fear and state of emotional distress.

    So from any medical, ethical or legal standpoint , the practices of Planned Parenthood are unacceptable. I fully expect that these third party tissue procurement practices which convert human tissue into a commodity will eventually be stopped. It may be a watershed moment just like Tuskegee and Nuremberg. Only time will tell.

    AND... I haven't even touched on the federal laws specifically related to abortion clinics.

    What we're seeing in these videos is scientifically sloppy, unethical, and illegal. Not to mention gross and disgusting and repugnant. In terms of our standing in world opinion, late term abortion is a uniquely American evil. It isn't permitted in other first world countries.
    I hope at the very minimum the doctors and RN's lose their licenses.

  8. #26
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    9,024

    Default

    1tulip, I think there is a Euro country that now allows euthanasia of infants with severe birth defects. Can't remember which country it is. Remember reading about it some months ago.

    Also, Ben Carson commented about Stem cell research having under-delivered on its promise. And that is somewhat supported by the fact that the demand has shifted to actual organs, rather than stem cells. More horrific, since it would encourage places like PP to defer the abortion to a later date? Early embryonic stem cells, it seems, may not generate into the desired organs; may even turn into tumors.

    STOMATIC (sp?) stem cell therapy is promising, but does not use embryonic cells.

    I'm guessing that most people don't realize the difference between the two types of stem cell research.

    The first video clearly stated that they change the way they do an abortion based on the organs they want to save. That, all by itself, is illegal, according to what has been stated in multiple media sources.
    [email protected]
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  9. #27
    Senior Member Raymond Little's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Lake Charles/Big Lake
    Posts
    2,598

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    1tulip, I think there is a Euro country that now allows euthanasia of infants with severe birth defects. Can't remember which country it is. Remember reading about it some months ago.

    Also, Ben Carson commented about Stem cell research having under-delivered on its promise. And that is somewhat supported by the fact that the demand has shifted to actual organs, rather than stem cells. More horrific, since it would encourage places like PP to defer the abortion to a later date? Early embryonic stem cells, it seems, may not generate into the desired organs; may even turn into tumors.

    STOMATIC (sp?) stem cell therapy is promising, but does not use embryonic cells.

    I'm guessing that most people don't realize the difference between the two types of stem cell research.

    The first video clearly stated that they change the way they do an abortion based on the organs they want to save. That, all by itself, is illegal, according to what has been stated in multiple media sources.
    Maybe that's why they have hired Dim pollsters, Dim mouth pieces and Dim AG's to sue the vid makers?? Don't forget they have threatened the Dim media to not air this same material. Wonder why all the damage control if it's all legal?
    Since the majority of their sales are from ethnic embryos, where is Jessie, Al, Jug Ears, Black Lies Matters?
    "Do more than is required of you"
    General George S. Patton


  10. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Linden, VA
    Posts
    5,904

    Default

    Hopefully PP will go the way of ACORN.

  11. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    3,821

    Default

    And people who kill live babies, whom we like to call fetuses, and call it abortion , should be violated also. I'm thinking a long rifle hollow point to the back of the head would be appropriate
    How have you arrived at your opinion? Is it Science?,,, is it biblical research concerning what constitutes "life" or murder"?
    Is it because someone in authority told you so? I would ask this question to anyone who had an opinion on a matter this important.
    I have never seen or heard anyone try to prove this biblically using scripture but they will always say it's 'Gods" word that abortion is murder. I would like to read this either using scripture build up or context or in a verse.
    I think excessive and unvalidated abortions are a sign of our times. A society in decline of moral values. But I can't for the life of me put a "murder" label on it because I can't find that murder label in the scriptures,,,what you actually find in one record is ,,the penality of a stranger purposefully killing a fetus by striking a woman in the belly was... A fine determined by the husband. If it was murder that man would be put to death because of Judean law.

    Pete
    The eye can not see what the mind does not know

  12. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Linden, VA
    Posts
    5,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    How have you arrived at your opinion? Is it Science?,,, is it biblical research concerning what constitutes "life" or murder"?
    Is it because someone in authority told you so? I would ask this question to anyone who had an opinion on a matter this important.
    I have never seen or heard anyone try to prove this biblically using scripture but they will always say it's 'Gods" word that abortion is murder. I would like to read this either using scripture build up or context or in a verse.
    I think excessive and unvalidated abortions are a sign of our times. A society in decline of moral values. But I can't for the life of me put a "murder" label on it because I can't find that murder label in the scriptures,,,what you actually find in one record is ,,the penality of a stranger purposefully killing a fetus by striking a woman in the belly was... A fine determined by the husband. If it was murder that man would be put to death because of Judean law.

    Pete

    Pete, is this record you cite in the old Testament?

    For Roman Catholics I can tell you it is dogma to respect the right of life from natural conception to natural death.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •