I fainted on my first day of work

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by BevoBeef, Jul 29, 2015.

  1. BevoBeef

    BevoBeef 250+ Posts

    Holly O'Donnell thought she was hired to draw blood from aborted babies. It turned out she was supposed to do something else.

    These are quotes from the third "edited" video of Planned Parenthood as reported by a Fox News article:

    O’Donnell said she fainted the first time she was part of this process and was told by someone in the room, “some of us don’t ever get over it.”

    After one person in the video picks out a pair of intact kidneys someone off-camera laughs and says, “Five stars!”

    “StemExpress is a company that hires procurement techs to draw blood and dissect dead fetuses and sell the parts to researchers,” she said. “They’ve partnered with Planned Parenthood and they get part of the money because we pay them to use their facilities. And they get paid from it. They do get some kind of benefit.”


    [[[ These quotes make one think about what kind of culture this country is promoting. Our tax dollars are hard at work providing facilities to do this work. ]]]

     
  2. zork

    zork 2,500+ Posts

    they better watch out or they will get audited. chilling stuff. (the threat of auditing for disagreement aint exactly comforting)
     
  3. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 2,500+ Posts

    Oh, the humanity!

    To do effective medical research on organs, scientists need organ samples. For some types of research, fetal organs are ideal. Apparently, the best source for fetal organs is fetuses (go figure), and the only way to procure intact fetal organs is to dissect fetuses carefully (again, go figure).

    This work isn't for everyone. It is undoubtedly gruesome, and I'm not surprised some people can't stomach it. I know I couldn't. But I'm glad there are people who can, so that researchers can do their thing.
     
  4. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Nj
    There is quite a large body of research and "experts" who disagree with you.
    Here is one article explaining why fetal body parts are no longer needed for the research:

    "Some scientists are especially “interested in doing research with fetal liver because it’s a rich source of stem cells,” which can have important therapeutic applications, says Dr. David Prentice, research director for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a pro-life group, and Indiana University stem-cell specialist. “At that point in your life while you’re in the womb, from about eight weeks after conception up to about 20 to 24 weeks, the fetal liver is very rich in stem cells. They’re the kinds of stem cells that you would find in bone marrow,” Prentice says. But, he says, the dubiously ethical practice isn’t nearly as important or useful as it used to be. “Frankly,” he says, “there is no advantage, nowadays, in fetal stem cells over adult cells. The science has matured.” Fetal stem cells can be used in fields ranging from Parkinson’s disease treatments to diabetes research, but Prentice says the focus on fetal stem cells is based on “an older idea that they will tend to grow more.” “It’s a holdover from, frankly, the 1960s and 70s when people were just learning how to grow cells in the lab and it was easier at that stage to grow fetal tissue,” he says. If the state of the science says stem cells harvested from fetal tissue are unnecessary, why is there so much demand?
    and
    “In fact, the fetal cells, because they tend to grow more, tend to be more dangerous,” Prentice tells NR. “There’s the possibility of producing tumors, which have been seen in some patients. There’s the possibility of producing random tissues instead of a desired tissue. So it’s not as good as a stem-cell source as adult [stem cells].”



    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421318/planned-parenthood-fetal-stem-cells-research-outdated
     
  5. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 2,500+ Posts

    I assume you are responding to this sentence from my post:

    You are right that there are some experts who don't think fetal organs are ideal for research. But there are quite a many who do think they are ideal. The best evidence is that so many researchers still choose to use fetal organs. So long as scientists disagree about which research shows the most promise, it is best to pursue all promising areas.

    To a large degree, the transition from fetal cells to adult cells involves therapies, not research. For example, scientists used fetal liver cells to figure out how to manufacture polio vaccines. Decades later, scientists figured out how to use adult cells for the same purpose. But that doesn't mean the next breakthrough will involve adult cells. It may, but it may not.

    Here is a good CNN article discussing the current state of fetal-tissue research.
     
  6. majorwhiteapples

    majorwhiteapples 5,000+ Posts

    smh that someone is actually trying to defend this, how sick is this world....
     
  7. Horns11

    Horns11 10,000+ Posts

    So is it a dignity thing then? Looking at your "how sick is this world" comment?

    Babies aren't going to stop being aborted, and aborted tissue isn't going to stop being used for medical research or harvesting. I agree there should probably be a shred of decency when dissecting recently-killed fetuses, but I could probably find a similar sense of impropriety or inappropriate comments in literally any other industry if I took hidden cameras/mics anywhere. I'm guessing there are med students who use the same tone when cutting cadavers and lawyers who use the same tone when talking about the captial punishment criminals who have been convicted to die. To pretend that the abortion "industry" should be a little more sacrosanct or hallowed in how they handle their affairs is just fuel for conservatives to get the base riled up against abortion, as if it's going to accomplish anything.
     
  8. zork

    zork 2,500+ Posts

    What about if the recently, actually, born dies? Does it change anything? How you believe in abortion might change how you answer that perhaps. Or, if you really think about it, maybe you might consider the process a bit differently if you consider the abortion industry is harvesting distinctly articulated pieces of humans that have been killed in the womb as opposed to clumps of non-distinct cells being thrown away after the process.

    The more light you shine on the process the more gruesome it gets taking all emotion out of it. If the fetus can live outside the womb then killing it is not just killing a lump of cells. We as a society have a duty to protect these distinctly human beings. And that is just the argument for the ones that are viable.
     
  9. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Nj
    Even in the article you linked that Prof mentioned that the specialized need for fetal tissue is going away. He only disagrees with the timeline. Many say it has already gone away with adult stem cells and even tissue from umbilical cords yielding the same benefit. He thinks the timeline show it not here yet. His opinion.

    The real horror and outrage come from learning PP crunches babies in a way to get the parts of the baby that will bring the biggest bucks. These are actual body parts Brains and livers etc, not unformed tissue
    This also brings back resistance to partial birth abortion and abortion after 20 weeks.
     
  10. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    While I can enjoy disagreeing with people like NJ and 11, I now have a whole new level of disgust. Why not just sell babies on EBay?
     
  11. Horns11

    Horns11 10,000+ Posts

    I mean, I guess that IS how I think about it. Of course they're harvesting organs... it's what they're supposed to do in the terms of their job. There's no way they could do their job if it was a "clump of non-distinct cells being thrown away." Sad that it was a baby? Surely. Tough job? Absolutely. Tactless and distasteful? Yes.

    Abortion is always going to have that stigma. But like I said in my other post, until abortion becomes illegal, or the "effects" of abortion like organ harvesting are banned or something like that, I don't think society can look at a clip of people responding inappropriately to something they do in the context of their jobs (fist bumping over finding intact organs from aborted fetuses) and take that as the ultimate red flag as to why abortion rights opponents can or will win the argument.

    Another side of the story involves the women themselves, and we don't get to hear or see that unless someone comes forward. Something tells me that the would-be mothers of these would-be children weren't exactly going to have a problem with what would happen to the fetuses after the abortion. Heck, I bet there's even waivers they sign to release the "medical materiel" to the organization doing the "woo-hoos" in the background. If a woman who had an abortion then watched the video, knowing it was her baby, would it change the argument? I don't know. I know I would never want a woman I impregnated to get an abortion, and if she did and this is what happened to the baby, I'd be upset. Probably to the point of throwing up. But it doesn't change the legal/labor aspect of what's going on.

    I guess the bottom line for many people, whether you fall on either side of the abortion argument, watch what you do and say on the job. Otherwise someone's going to hidden mic your ***.
     
  12. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    For many, maybe most, the issue is late term/ partial birth abortions which is where brains. livers, kidneys etc are harvested in a non crunchy way to get the parts that bring the most money.
    Oh but wait PP doesn't profit off making sure they get the best " parts".
    Another side issue that is coming up is the use of ultrasound. PP has long and loudly decried having pregnant women view an ultrasound before an abortion YET PP speaks of making good use of ultrasounds so the extracting Docs know where to crunch and where to yank.
     
  13. majorwhiteapples

    majorwhiteapples 5,000+ Posts

    We are all going to die, let's just harvest your organs now because you are a piece of **** human being, or should we give you a chance......abortion is appalling by itself, now this, anyone who even tries to justify this is really man you need help man, I don't know what else to say, you need help and you need it quick!
     
  14. Horns11

    Horns11 10,000+ Posts

    Take it you're not an organ donor? https://www.donatelifetexas.org/

    The fact that you state abortion is appalling by itself shows that you're not going to agree with the legal issues or reproductive rights anyhow. I said I agree that they should have treated the situation differently, but knowing that they didn't, it's not going to make me go throw a brick at a PP clinic window. It just makes me sad for the subject of the article and the mothers who make the choice to do that. If you're going to argue to take away abortion altogether to put the comedic geniuses behind "five stars!" out of a job, you're not going to win.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    In the FWIW category here is a good story from Radiolab on a family whose son died less than a week after being born and where their organ donations landed. The mother made felt compelled to reach out to every research lab to understand the relative value of her son's organs.

    She came away very impressed: http://www.radiolab.org/story/grays-donation/

    I'm not making any judgement on PP's practices. I don't have an issue with it as long as they have the approval of the mother no differently than parents have the ability to donate their child's organs in an infant death situation.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. zork

    zork 2,500+ Posts

    Did she buy a Lamborghini with her proceeds?( didn't read the link)
     
  17. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Nah, this was a twin that wasn't expected to survive more than minutes due to a misshapen skull. He lived for nearly a week.

    I was shocked at the level of detail that went into the organ donation. For example, his corneas went to one place and his retinas to another. The audio walks her through meeting the researchers with interviews of the mother and researchers. It's a good anecdotal view of perspectives of both sides.
     
  18. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Husker
    You mentioned the mother in an infant death situation.Do you see no difference between a baby born alive but unable to sustain life and crunching a living a baby in the womb?
     
  19. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    No, I don't. I personally don't believe life begins until the fetus can survive on their own just like that child with the misshapen head. Generally speaking I don't believe in 3rd trimester abortions thus would support a law limiting them to 2nd trimester.

    If that fetus was being legally aborted and the mother wants to donate it to research, I have absolutely zero issue with that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. zork

    zork 2,500+ Posts

    can they donate it to a restaurant? can they donate it to dog food manufacturer? etc, etc? no restrictions, any restrictions? I honestly hadn't considered the ramifications nor the limits of this situation. What can or cannot you do with fetal tissue?
     
  21. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    I have no idea. I'm assuming there are some laws somewhere which address what can be done with human remains.
     
  22. Larry T Spider

    Larry T Spider 100+ Posts

    If we are going to have abortions, then I have no problem with research being done. However, I think it needs to be made very clear to the mother and she needs to sign off on it. I am somewhat uneasy about the potential conflict of interest of abortion providers potentially performing services in the most profitable way, not necessarily the best way for mother and fetus.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  23. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    Please define "mother." Here is Merriam Webster's definition:

    So are they harvesting a child or was that just a Freudian slip?
     
  24. Larry T Spider

    Larry T Spider 100+ Posts

    I actually thought about that word choice when I was writing it. I think if we are going to use the term "baby" to describe the fetus then "mother" would seem to go along with that. Seems easier than saying "impregnated woman who wants that thing out of her at all costs".
     
  25. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    I think the special names abortion rights groups have placed on the practice make it more tolerable for a dumbed down public. For example:

    Reproductive rights - nothing to do about reproduction, but actually the termination of conception.

    Pro Choice - Pro abortion, pro convenience of "I do not want the burden of a kid."

    Mother - I see that often and cringe. Only way I know mother is if they have a child (even if adopted). If they have a child, what is an abortion?

    When you learn that someone is pregnant, generally people ask "when is your baby due" versus "when is your glump of cells due."

    I hope this despicable process currently in the news turns the tables on Roe v Wade, but I doubt it does. The public has accepted it and nobody can stop it now in our political world.
     
  26. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    In fact, a lot of the main stream media is spinning these videos as an "attack on women". Four democratic Congressmen have asked the Justice Dept. to look into charges against the org that took the videos. Justice won't pursue the cases against Hillary or IRS, but they'll probably look into this.
     
  27. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I tend to agree with Larry. I think abortion is a sick practice, but since it's legal, I'd rather see some good come out of it, such as scientific research. However, I don't have a lot concern for if the "mother" gave consent. To her, the fetus was garbage to be tossed in the trash, so I don't see why she should care what happens to it.

    To me, the real impact of this is political. Most people have a moral or ethical problem with abortion at least to a point. (There are people who truly believe that having an abortion is no different than having a wart removed and think it's a good thing (the abortion selfie idiots, etc.). Those people are sick fucks whose morality is on the lowest of human standards, and fortunately there aren't many of those people - not enough to matter on their own.)

    Abortion remains legal, because a large number of people balance the rights and privacy of the woman against the interest of something they don't consider fully human (the "glob of cells"). However, they're receptive to arguments against abortion and will support restrictions, but they don't want to adopt an extreme position on the issue, because they can forsee scenarios in which denying abortion rights would be an injustice. That causes them to come down on the side of abortion rights, albeit with reservation.

    The videos have the potential to do what sonograms have done. The confirm that what's being destroyed in abortions often have significantly formed and clearly defined organs. That makes the "glob of cells" illusion sound less and less believable and makes the fetus seem more and more human, which tips the balance further in favor of the fetus.

    Of course, the pro-life movement is at least flirting with screwing this up by holding up the budget (which would lead to a government shutdown) to defund Planned Parenthood. Why will that screw it up? Here's why. Obama will claim: (1) PP is under investigation for possible wrongdoing and (2) PP isn't allowed to use its federal funds for abortion but for mammograms, gynecological exams, birth control, etc. (which is true, by the way). That will enable him to pitch the narrative with the help of the media that the GOP isn't trying to cut funding for abortion or selling fetal tissue but is trying to cut funding for poor women who need mammograms, birth control, etc. Considering how poorly the GOP handles shutdowns, they'll end up with egg on their face.
     
  28. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 2,500+ Posts

    Issues like this increase the possibility of 4 years for Hillary Clinton in the White House. Republicans don't seem to understand the idea of strategically picking which battles to fight.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    They are horrendously bad at picking their battles and how to wage the battles they pick. They frequently have no strategy for victory and have no idea how to pitch their position to the public.

    If Ted Cruz opens his mouth at a caucus meeting, somebody should slap him in the nuts.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    So another video is released and it is even more appalling if that is possible.
    Here is some of it including that they can get an " intact" baby if the mother delivers before they do the procedure.

    Husker I think that means an alive baby, How about you?
    from link
    "New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ Vice President and Medical Director, Dr. Savita Ginde, negotiating a fetal body parts deal, agreeing multiple times to illicit pricing per body part harvested, and suggesting ways to avoid legal consequences.

    In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Ginde at the abortion-clinic headquarters of PPRM in Denver to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs. When the actors request intact fetal specimens, Ginde reveals that in PPRM’s abortion practice, “Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.”
    and
    "When the buyers ask Ginde if “compensation could be specific to the specimen?” Ginde agrees, “Okay.” Later on in the abortion clinic’s pathological laboratory, standing over an aborted fetus, Ginde responds to the buyer’s suggestion of paying per body part harvested, rather than a standard flat fee for the entire case: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”
    and
    "
    As the buyers and Planned Parenthood workers identify body parts from last fetus in the path lab, a Planned Parenthood medical assistant announces: “Another boy!”



    One thing I have learned is that since PPRM does not use digoxin or other feticide in its 2nd trimester procedures, any intact deliveries before an abortion are potentially born-alive infants under federal law (1 USC 8). The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). Federal law also requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

    The PP people also discuss on the vid how they avoid breaking any laws. Seem to me a baby delivered ( NOT miscarried) before they can do the ' procedure" is a live baby
    That also suggests they do procedures pretty far along in gestation doesn't it?


    for some reason I can't get links to post from this puter but a simple search for fourth Planned parenthood will give you plenty of sites OR the vid is also on Youtube


    edit
    this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQuZMvcFA8

    this comment from that Dr ""A lot of times, especially with the second [trimester fetuses], we won’t even put water, because it’s so big you can put your hand in there and pick out the parts.”
    SHOULD disgust even the pro abortion people
     

Share This Page