Terrorist incident in Colorado Springs

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Yes.  How many progressives who resort to this tactic (and I include the folks here on this forum), think "the left" must accept responsibility for the acts of Floyd Lee Corkin?

 

I think you've massively overlooked the fact that right wing politicians are using the exact same rhetoric as this guy was ("no more selling baby parts."). Hell, Cruz used that exact phrase yesterday.

[Commodore]

 that they sell baby parts is not in dispute by anyone

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

 that they sell baby parts is not in dispute by anyone

Um, what?

Seriously, you right wingers, in a circular attempt to out right wing one another, have truly become insane.

[Commodore]

Um, what?

Seriously, you right wingers, in a circular attempt to out right wing one another, have truly become insane.

Until the videos were released, PP received payment for baby parts. They deny they profit from it, but the executives haggling about prices in the videos calls that claim into question. 

I guess we could argue about whether they are babies. Or parts. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Until the videos were released, PP received payment for baby parts. They deny they profit from it, but the executives haggling about prices in the videos calls that claim into question. 

I guess we could argue about whether they are babies. Or parts.

 

The people illegally filming the doctors were trying to get them to accept more than they were asking for. The doctors didn't accept. That's not haggling, that's entrapment. They weren't trying to profit from fetal tissue sales.

Furthermore, the videos have been proven to be highly edited. The portion Fiorina made famous was A.) not filmed at PP, and B.) the voice over was not an employee of PP.

But why be honest when lying to achieve your goals is so much easier.

[Chris G]

Until the videos were released, PP received payment for baby parts. They deny they profit from it, but the executives haggling about prices in the videos calls that claim into question. 

I guess we could argue about whether they are babies. Or parts. 

 

As allowed by law.  You may not like or agree with the law, but it is the law.  I know you don't give a fuck about truth and facts, but at least try to be honest. 

These assholes like Ted Cruz say whatever they think will allow them access to power.  He is an evil, despicable man.  Quit trying to pawn off responsibility for the actions of this asshole.  You don't hear Democratic candidates advocating violence against people and institutions they don't agree with.  Just the GOP circus and their increasingly unstable base.  When your party's' only ideas are filled with hate and anger, eventually you will have things like this.  Is this guy ultimately responsible?  Yes, but Ted fucking Cruz trying to deflect blame and obfuscate his and others responsibility is disgusting.  My own Congressman lost my vote with his bullshit response while the situation was ongoing.  Adam Kinzinger seemed like he was somewhat less vile than most of the GOP reps, but he proved he was just as bad as the worst of them.   So fuck that guy and his party. 

All this bullshit 'take back the country' rhetoric does nothing but cause more division and anger.  Who are they taking the country back from?  They control most of the statehouses and Governorships, they control both Houses of Congress.  They have a majority on the Supreme Court.  What have they lost?  The right to be an unimpeded asshole to people they don't like?  The right to oppress minorities and other 'unsavory' characters?  The fact that they don't have a lock on the culture and religion of the country anymore?  If anything, they've made gains in going back to some mythical time when things were better.  So now they have to accept that the people they don't like have the same protections and rights?  Why is this an issue?  What do they think they are losing? 

 

[ChillyPolly]

As allowed by law.  You may not like or agree with the law, but it is the law.  I know you don't give a fuck about truth and facts, but at least try to be honest. 

Okay.  What you're saying is that they were indeed (in the crude language of the lowly unwashed masses so despised by elite thinkers) "selling baby body parts".  But that's okay (according to you) because "the law" permits them.

I really don't know whether they profited by some definition of "profit"; or if they violate some federal statute that I have not read.  That goes beyond my expertise, and perhaps yours as well.

Is that "honest" enough?  Or is there still a problem?

Which would bring us to:  "yes, its true they sold baby body parts but shhh!  don't say so to the lowly unwashed masses in terms they understand, because if you do, some maniac might run amok".

Which seems a bit undemocratic.  

[Wise Fool]

Until the videos were released, PP received payment for baby parts. They deny they profit from it, but the executives haggling about prices in the videos calls that claim into question. 

I guess we could argue about whether they are babies. Or parts. 

 

There's no argument. They weren't babies. But of course it's hard to rile up right-wing nutjobs and incite them to violence over "fetal tissue." It's an important enough distinction that it was on the mind of the latest right-wing terrorist incited to violence over this issue, and important enough that you (And CP, and every other right winger on this forum) are stuck on defending the use of "baby body parts" as a term due to how conveniently emotionally-charged it is.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Okay.  What you're saying is that they were indeed (in the crude language of the lowly unwashed masses so despised by elite thinkers) "selling baby body parts".  But that's okay (according to you) because "the law" permits them.

I really don't know whether they profited by some definition of "profit"; or if they violate some federal statute that I have not read.  That goes beyond my expertise, and perhaps yours as well.

Is that "honest" enough?  Or is there still a problem?

Which would bring us to:  "yes, its true they sold baby body parts but shhh!  don't tell the lowly unwashed masses, because if you do, some maniac might run amock".

Which seems a bit undemocratic.  

They are not "SELLING" they are charging for the cost incurred in preserving, storing and delivering, that is all. There is a huge difference between the two.

[Chris G]

Okay.  What you're saying is that they were indeed (in the crude language of the lowly unwashed masses so despised by elite thinkers) "selling baby body parts".  But that's okay (according to you) because "the law" permits them.

I really don't know whether they profited by some definition of "profit"; or if they violate some federal statute that I have not read.  That goes beyond my expertise, and perhaps yours as well.

Is that "honest" enough?  Or is there still a problem?

Which would bring us to:  "yes, its true they sold baby body parts but shhh!  don't tell the lowly unwashed masses, because if you do, some maniac might run amock".

Which seems a bit undemocratic.  

Honestly, to me it's no different from any tissue donation.  They get consent from the mother and only charge for the transportation and storage of the tissue until delivered.  They have had their books investigated and have been found to be in compliance with the law.  Do we get upset that someone donates the organs of a child that dies in an accident?  No, no we don't because we recognize that the child's parents get to make that decision, not you or I.  Is it uncomfortable to talk about?  Of course, like all tissue donation conversations

The problem is using overheated rhetoric to score political points.  They can say anything they want, but they also need to accept responsibility for things that occur because of their rhetoric.  If you want to be honest, then explain the law.  Explain how it is no different from any other tissue donation other than it is from an aborted pregnancy.  They aren't selling baby parts, they are providing tissue for medical research that could help the selfsame opponents in the future. 

By using the rhetoric they do and encouraging 2nd Amendment solutions they are directly responsible for the results of their words.  They can say what they want, but they also have to be responsible for their words.  They are no different from the Muslim clerics who preach jihad, or Christian extremists who preach violence and death.  If we want to hold all Muslims responsible for terror attacks, then we should hold all Christians responsible for these actions, myself included.  I'm guilty of not standing up to the extremists in my own religion and I accept that the rhetoric that comes from extremist Christians is on my head too, but I am not called to task or asked to take responsibility for the extremists.  I don't like abortion, but I have accepted that it's not my decision to make.  I also know that these actions serve no one and only harden opinions on both sides.  

[Wise Fool]

Oh but "baby body parts" is now the only way for people to understand! They don't know big words like "fetus" or "tissue," the poor Dears. Let's all stop being such elitist liberals by using the right words for things and just stick with highly charged inaccurate political buzzwords. That's working out great for everybody so far. Baby body parts, baby body parts, in abortion mills, run by baby butchers!

[JonSnow4President]

There's no argument. They weren't babies. 

And there's your dilemma that largely decides abortion viewpoints.  At what point does human life start, and if it is before birth, how do you balance the rights off that human vs the rights of the human who is automatically endangered via birth (but generally chose to engage in the activities resulting in fetus.

If I didn't consider unborn fetuses as human life, I wouldn't give two shits about abortion.  But since I do, I despise it.  And there is no way we can come to an agreement on what constitutes human life.  Unlike a lot of things, that's something science can't provide a definitive answer to.

Instead of throwing strongly worded assaults on everyone, try and see why they have their viewpoint.  It tends to make you a lot more palatable to people who hold the opposite viewpoint.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Oh but "baby body parts" is now the only way for people to understand! They don't know big words like "fetus" or "tissue," the poor Dears. Let's all stop being such elitist liberals by using the right words for things and just stick with highly charged inaccurate political buzzwords. That's working out great for everybody so far. Baby body parts, baby body parts, in abortion mills, run by baby butchers!

I am a firm supporter of abortion being made available on demand and without apology, but I don't think that calling them "baby body parts" is outside the realm of reasonable discourse. To pretend that what's happening here is really a debate over the use of medically appropriate terms of obfuscatory. There's obviously a moral claim embedded in the "baby body part" language - that the moral status of a fetus doesn't change just because of which side of a womb it happens to be sitting on -  and that claim is not facially absurd. In fact, Peter Singer, noted atheist and ethicist, agrees with it as well, which is why he provides some limited support for infanticide. And "tissue" is certainly a part of the body. So while I recognize that this language is designed to frame the debate in a particular way, I don't think it's a particularly disingenuous way to do it. 

[ChillyPolly]

They are not "SELLING" they are charging for the cost incurred in preserving, storing and delivering, that is all. There is a huge difference between the two.

"Selling" uses fewer syllables than "charging only for the cost incurred in preserving storing and delivering".  It also does not incorporated assumptions beyond my knowledge, and to which I cannot attest.

The lowly unwashed masses would probably say "selling" occurs whenever money changes hands for an item.  99% of the time, when a lowly common type talks talks of "selling" and "buying", he is in no position to assess the profit margin.  I learned to speak English among this lower species of human animal, and tend to use and understand words in the same non-elite manner they do.

Also, such quibbles have gone beyond any probable or likely relevance to the situation at hand.  I remain unsure that the Colorado Springs Shooter was motivated by opposition to abortion.  If he was, it seems to me unlikely that the sale of body parts would make any difference to him.  But even if he did care about this, it seems to me ridiculously unlikely that he cared about the profit margin, or lack thereof, one way or another.

[Shryke]

Just .... so perfect:

http://www.theonion.com/article/frustrated-gunman-cant-believe-how-far-he-has-driv-51923

Frustrated Gunman Can’t Believe How Far He Has To Drive To Find Nearest Planned Parenthood Clinic

Expressing frustration with the lack of convenient locations in his area, deranged gunman and anti-abortion fanatic Jared Broussard reported Monday that he could not believe how far he would have to drive to find the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic. “You have to be kidding me; I figured I’d need to go 10, maybe 15 miles, tops, but the closest one is almost 250 miles away,” said a visibly exasperated Broussard, adding that he would have to scrap his plans for the entire day and leave right now if he wanted to reach the health care provider before it closed this evening. “God, the nearest one isn’t even in this state. It’s actually faster for me to drive across the border to Santa Fe, and even then it’s still a four-hour trip. That barely leaves me enough time to buy ammo.” Broussard added that, given the length of the drive, he was thankful that he would likely not have to make a round trip.

[Chris G]

"Selling" uses fewer syllables than "charging only for the cost incurred in preserving storing and delivering".  It also does not incorporated assumptions beyond my knowledge, and to which I cannot attest.

The lowly unwashed masses would probably say "selling" occurs whenever money changes hands.  99% of the time, when a lowly common type talks talks of "selling" and "buying", he is in no position to assess the profit margin.  I learned to speak English among this lower species of human animal, and tend to use and understand words in the same non-elite manner they do.

Also, such quibbles have gone beyond any probable or likely relevance to the situation at hand.  I remain unsure that the Colorado Springs Shooter was motivated by opposition to abortion.  If he was, it seems to me unlikely that the sale of body parts would make any difference to him.  But even if he did care about this, it seems to me ridiculously unlikely that he cared about the profit margin, or lack thereof, one way or another.

So using 'baby body parts' instead of tissue is the problem?  The 'lowly unwashed masses' can understand that, but baby body parts is more inflaming.  Don't try and obfuscate the reasons they use such language.  It's because it gets exactly the reaction they want, anger and rage.  "They are selling baby body parts" is in no way anything but inflammatory.  This is tissue donation, no different than if one of my children died and my wife and I decided to donate their organs.  Anything else is nothing but rhetoric designed to rile up people already opposed to abortion. 

There are no assumptions beyond your knowledge, you just refuse to acknowledge that PP has been investigated and found to be in compliance with the law because you don't want to believe that.  I know your disingenuous phrasing and inability to acknowledge that people are smarter than you've characterized them is part and parcel of your shtick, but come on.  This asshole shot the clinic up for a reason and one reason only, because they provide abortion services and have been demonized by the extreme right.  Not because he is mentally ill, not because it was the closest place he could find, because they provide abortions.  I acknowledge that extreme leftists are just as bad, however they don't shoot up public places.  However much the right wants it to be false, it's your extremists who perpetrate most of the mass shootings in this country.

[Seventh Pup]

"Selling" uses fewer syllables than "charging only for the cost incurred in preserving storing and delivering".  It also does not incorporated assumptions beyond my knowledge, and to which I cannot attest.

The lowly unwashed masses would probably say "selling" occurs whenever money changes hands.  99% of the time, when a lowly common type talks talks of "selling" and "buying", he is in no position to assess the profit margin.  I learned to speak English among this lower species of human animal, and tend to use and understand words in the same non-elite manner they do.

Also, such quibbles have gone beyond any probable or likely relevance to the situation at hand.  I remain unsure that the Colorado Springs Shooter was motivated by opposition to abortion.  If he was, it seems to me unlikely that the sale of body parts would make any difference to him.  But even if he did care about this, it seems to me ridiculously unlikely that he cared about the profit margin, or lack thereof, one way or another.

Out of curiosity Polly what are your thoughts on organ donation. Especially when the choice to donate falls to the families and not the person themselves? 

Honestly I have not watched all the videos, but what I have seen seems to fall pretty squarely with in the regular discourse of talking about acquiring human tissue, whether for medical treatment or study. It's creepy, but not immoral. (I used to work in an ICU, I saw a few people prepped for organ donation after they where declared brain dead, it was very, very, very creepy. But it served a greater good, and I am still an organ donor.)  Huge, gigantic amounts of money are spent on organ donation every year. The cost of acquiring, storing, transporting, and transplanting organs is intense. Even acquiring something for study is hugely expensive. Bodies that where donated to science where treated like gold. I once had a medical school administrator say that every human cadaver that was used in medical schools was insured for over $100,000. I am not sure if that is true, but it wouldn't surprise me. 

The point is we don't take about selling or buying when it comes to organ donation, or acquiring tissue,  whether for study or medical use, unless we are talking about the black market. So using the term 'selling baby parts' is not accurate, and is a pretty inflammatory thing to say. 

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

"Selling" uses fewer syllables than "charging only for the cost incurred in preserving storing and delivering".  It also does not incorporated assumptions beyond my knowledge, and to which I cannot attest.

The lowly unwashed masses would probably say "selling" occurs whenever money changes hands for an item.  99% of the time, when a lowly common type talks talks of "selling" and "buying", he is in no position to assess the profit margin.  I learned to speak English among this lower species of human animal, and tend to use and understand words in the same non-elite manner they do.

Also, such quibbles have gone beyond any probable or likely relevance to the situation at hand.  I remain unsure that the Colorado Springs Shooter was motivated by opposition to abortion.  If he was, it seems to me unlikely that the sale of body parts would make any difference to him.  But even if he did care about this, it seems to me ridiculously unlikely that he cared about the profit margin, or lack thereof, one way or another.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying in the first part.  That it doesn't matter what the money was for, that an exchange equals selling to the un/undereducated?

As to the second, I thought I saw something this morning that confirmed what he said, but I'm not at home now and can't check.  I can understand wanting that verified.    But, I don't think anyone claimed he cared about the profit margin, but rather the whole idea of abortion and the using of the body parts (eta) which is what some politicians and media were spewing forth, with the intent of bringing down Planned Parenthood

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

So using 'baby body parts' instead of tissue is the problem?  The 'lowly unwashed masses' can understand that, but baby body parts is more inflaming.  Don't try and obfuscate the reasons they use such language.  It's because it gets exactly the reaction they want, anger and rage.  "They are selling baby body parts" is in no way anything but inflammatory.  This is tissue donation, no different than if one of my children died and my wife and I decided to donate their organs.  Anything else is nothing but rhetoric designed to rile up people already opposed to abortion. 

The circumstances under which a death takes place has an obvious impact on how people view the treatment of the corpse. I don't see why it's so difficult to view it from the perspective of someone who believes that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder. From that perspective, what you're dealing with is murder compounded by exploitation of the corpse of the murdered. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I am a firm supporter of abortion being made available on demand and without apology, but I don't think that calling them "baby body parts" is outside the realm of reasonable discourse. To pretend that what's happening here is really a debate over the use of medically appropriate terms of obfuscatory. There's obviously a moral claim embedded in the "baby body part" language - that the moral status of a fetus doesn't change just because of which side of a womb it happens to be sitting on -  and that claim is not facially absurd. In fact, Peter Singer, noted atheist and ethicist, agrees with it as well, which is why he provides some limited support for infanticide. And "tissue" is certainly a part of the body. So while I recognize that this language is designed to frame the debate in a particular way, I don't think it's a particularly disingenuous way to do it.

Nestor,

Thank you.  I don't agree with Singer but I do applaude him for not shying away from the broader ethical implications of abortion.