Patterico's Pontifications

8/12/2015

These Mothers Don’t Know…

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:24 am



[guest post by Dana]

The Center for Medical Progress has released a new video, Human Capital – Episode 2: Inside the Planned Parenthood Supply Site.

Although there is nothing visually graphic in the video, it is nonetheless horrible. Holly O’Donnell, ex-Procurement Technician for StemExpress opens up about the supply side of the “business:

The co-workers I had, they would not consent the donors. If there was a higher gestation and the tech needed it, there were times where they just took what they wanted and these mothers don’t know. There’s no way they could know.

[B]asically, you went in there and took her blood, and you’re going to be taking her fetus without her knowing? So… yeah, I’m not… it’s, terrifying. Imagine if you were an abortion patient and someone was going in and stealing your baby’s parts.

–Dana

210 Responses to “These Mothers Don’t Know…”

  1. grain. of. salt.

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  2. That’s the outfit that sued to block the videos.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  3. What a demonstration of the slippery slope. From a “women’s right to chose” to killing viable babies for the body parts.

    Bar Sinister (b48c12)

  4. I must be becoming numb to this. If the mother wanted to kill the kid, why would she care if they parted it out after the fact?

    JD (bbb6de)

  5. Imagine if you were an abortion patient and someone was going in and stealing your baby’s parts.

    Imagine if you were a leftist in America today and neither the murder of the aborted baby nor the stealing of her body parts mattered a rats a$$. Imagine the callous, shallow, soulless being you would have become. Now imagine voting for someone like that for President.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  6. The problem with the fallacy argument is that this slippery slope actually came true.

    Bar Sinister (b48c12)

  7. When a “logical fallacy” is shown to be in fact true,
    is it still called a fallacy?

    It is not a logical necessity that a lit match dropped in a dry forest will cause a forest fire,
    that said,
    only a fool would do it to try to prove a point.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  8. beat me to it Bar, I type slowly.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  9. there was a reason for the Hippocratic oath, this is why Emmanuel has problems with it,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  10. JD wrote:

    I must be becoming numb to this. If the mother wanted to kill the kid, why would she care if they parted it out after the fact?

    It’s for the greater good, you know, for science!

    Josef Mengele (f6a568)

  11. I just watched the entire video. If folks are shocked by this, we definitely have some disconnect here.

    It was convenient for the witness in the video to “imagine” what the doctor was doing (around 5:00). Shocka – she’s “very pro life.” A lot of this footage is just her editorializing and appealing to emotion. At FedEx, she “didn’t know what to say?” Good Lord.

    I am not at all shocked by this. Mrs carlito and I signed a very similar consent form when we went through fertility treatments. Why would you want to throw away any useful material, whether a zygote or a fetus’ liver or blood? How does that help anything?

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  12. <blockquoteWhat a demonstration of the slippery slope. From a “women’s right to chose” to killing viable babies for the body parts.

    Bar Sinister (b48c12) — 8/12/2015 @ 6:38 am

    You apparently didn’t watch the video, or didn’t comprehend its content. The fetuses involved were mostly less than 12-15 weeks. The largest number I saw on the video was 18 weeks. Are those “viable babies?” No. Were they “killed for their body parts?” No, they were abortions that were going to happen anyway.

    Full disclosure – my workday is busy after ~10 pacific, so I might drop out of the discussion early.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  13. Carlitos – given what we have learned about their consent forms and practices previously, do you really think that wa spelled out? Especially since we now know that they would manipulate and change the procedures to maximize the organs they could harvest?

    JD (3b5483)

  14. i do not trust this “Holly” if that’s her real name

    i feel like Holly has her own agenda

    this is the one where we’re supposed to believe she had no idea what job she was hired for

    this is not believable to me

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  15. Question for those who believe this is just tissue, not part of a human being:

    Would frying this up for breakfast be cannibalism, or just breakfast?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  16. Kevin M, that’s brilliant. Also, a human zygote cannot become a cat or a donkey.

    JD – give me a bit; I’ll get back to you.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  17. I think pro-choice folks can feel revulsion to parting out aborted babies, just as some people have an aversion to autopsies on deceased family members. In addition, minorities are much less likely to be organ donors, so minority mothers aborting their babies may be less willing to consider donating their babies’ parts.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  18. No. Were they “killed for their body parts?”

    Sale of organs is a crime under federal law. The law was passed to prevent the sale of kidneys for transplant and now live donor liver transplants which are possible.

    UC, Irvine had a scandal ten years ago when I was on the faculty because the school was selling parts of donated bodies to a program to teach arthroscopy of the shoulder and knee. This were donated bodies but it was still illegal.

    Under utilitarian ethics, sale of fetus parts is OK, I guess, but the temptation to go beyond viability seems to be the risk. I see no evidence that these people have any ethical barrier to murder.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  19. If you haven’t read the old SF story described here, it might be worth your time, folks:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas

    The real question is simple: what are the limits a person has, to enjoy their own selfishness and advantages?

    It’s different for everyone.

    But I would walk away from Omelas.

    Other folks might differ.

    Simon Jester (44c78c)

  20. I hear Donald Trump pledged his support to Planned Parenthood on last night’s Hannity show?

    Colonel Haiku (b624c3)

  21. the Age of Machines
    Cold-hearted greedy people
    It’s what’s for breakfast

    Colonel Haiku (b624c3)

  22. In the Machine Age
    With wonders beyond belief
    We look for our souls

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  23. im pretty sure that if some woman is agreeing to the slicing up of her baby in her womb it really wouldnt matter to her what was done with the remains…no matter what she said beforehand…its faux concern…kinda like how democrats SAY they care about blacks but look the other way when the story comes out that in new york more black babies are aborted than born alive…

    sound awake (beb21b)

  24. 4n ag3d m4ch1n2
    1s 4 p4ltry th1ng
    4 t4t3r3d ch41n
    up0n 4 spr0ck3t
    unl3ss s0ul cl4p
    1ts g34r 4nd s1ng

    felipe (56556d)

  25. sound awake (beb21b) — 8/12/2015 @ 9:07 am

    That was well said.

    felipe (56556d)

  26. Mr K wrote:

    Sale of organs is a crime under federal law. The law was passed to prevent the sale of kidneys for transplant and now live donor liver transplants which are possible.

    I have said before, in regard to prostitution, that I do not see how it can be illegal to do something for money that would be perfectly legal to do for free. The same is true here: how can it be perfectly legal for me to donate a kidney, for free, but a crime to do so for cash?

    The libertarian Dana (f6a568)

  27. sound awake,

    If they don’t care, then why would they ever say No?

    DRJ (1dff03)

  28. DRJ noted:

    In addition, minorities are much less likely to be organ donors,

    So, while I’m sure ‘twould be terribly, terribly illegal for me to say that I was willing to be an organ donor upon my demise, with the restriction that my body parts only go to white recipients, would it be similarly illegal, and politically incorrect, for a black man to say that he would be an organ donor, but only for black recipients, ’cause they need the organs more?

    The Affirmative Action Dana (f6a568)

  29. Carlitos – given what we have learned about their consent forms and practices previously, do you really think that was spelled out? Especially since we now know that they would manipulate and change the procedures to maximize the organs they could harvest?

    JD (3b5483) — 8/12/2015 @ 8:07 am

    Just for clarity – do I think that what was spelled out?

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  30. Simon, that story is an allegory of how the bourgeoisie live high off the hog on the sweat and blood of the proletariat. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  31. Dana, I kind of agree with you @27 when it comes to prostitution. Willing seller willing buyer and all.

    But it’s not so simple with abortion. The donor of the body parts doesn’t get a vote.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  32. Libertarian Dana,

    The law is about incentives and consequences, and how that impacts behavior. People think twice about murder because of morals but also because of legal consequences.

    IMO we don’t want to incentive organ donation for money because it tempts people to use mental or physical coercion or subterfuge to get organs. Thus, using your analogy to prostitution, it’s one thing if you have a willing seller-willing buyer, but it’s another if there is a pimp involved. With abortion, PP is like the pimp and that increases the possibility coercion or subterfuge will occur.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  33. in new york more black babies are aborted than born alive…

    sound awake (beb21b) — 8/12/2015 @ 9:07 am

    According to the source, this group also had the highest rate of “spontaneous terminations” (miscarriage) vs. other demographics. I guess that God is also in on the conspiracy to abort black babies.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  34. DRJ, count on you to say it better than I could.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  35. Actually, nk, LeGuin’s own long standing (and fairly hypocritical) politics does not limit the larger parable.

    Which was my point.

    What “evil” are people willing to enjoy to support their “good” lives?

    It’s important question. Too many people look away.

    It applies everywhere, and to everyone.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  36. AA Dana,

    Genetically, that might happen whether or not you designation. For instance, it’s my understanding that it’s harder for minorities to get transplants because they have so few matches in the donor organ pool.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  37. carlitos, I’m noticing a trend.

    What’s with the leftist deal to equate miscarriage with abortion?

    Do you think this stupidity will play out well?

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  38. Steve57,

    We’re often on the same page making the same points, don’t you think?

    DRJ (1dff03)

  39. DRJ, I already knew the motivations behind the laws concerning paid organ donations, but knowing the motivations does not mean that I see the laws as right; if I can donate a kidney for free — and my second cousin did a stranger kidney donation — then I cannot see how the state has a right to criminalize it if I do so for cash.

    Part of the reason for the law is that the government didn’t think it was right for wealthy people to be able to jump the line for available organs. That doesn’t make much sense to me: if the wealthy can buy their needed organs, then we are saving people who are not drains on society at a greater rate than we are saving those who are more of a drain on society.

    We have actually had convicts receive organ transplants, at times when there were law-abiding people on the waiting lists. That should never happen!

    The practical economist Dana (f6a568)

  40. 39. Steve57,

    We’re often on the same page making the same points, don’t you think?

    DRJ (1dff03) — 8/12/2015 @ 9:50 am

    I agree, but how did this come about?

    It’s one of life’s mysteries.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  41. Mr 57 wrote:

    Dana, I kind of agree with you @27 when it comes to prostitution. Willing seller willing buyer and all.

    But it’s not so simple with abortion. The donor of the body parts doesn’t get a vote.

    Actually, it seems that the donor does get a vote . . . and that vote is cast by the donor’s “mother.” You might not like seeing it put that way, but that is the way the law apparently operates.

    After all, the unborn child might not vote to leave the womb early, but his “mother” gets to cast that vote for him as well.

    The very practical economist Dana (f6a568)

  42. carlitos #12 & #13 – if it helps you to sleep at night focusing on the “it was going to happen anyway” claim for the abortions discussed in this video, that is what you are going to do …

    Given that Planned Parenthood’s standard method for abortion is to avoid the use of feticide, the fetus is apparently healthy and developing when they perform the abortion … the expectation for that fetus is that, barring outside intervention, that fetus will grow to term and be delivered …

    At the risk of interrupting that complacency, at how many weeks’ development *does* an abortion without feticide cause you concern – at least, sufficient concern to say “This is just plain and simply wrong !” ? If you and your lady wife were given a genuinely-informed consent, for fetal body-part harvesting on a 24-30 week old fetus, would you give your consent to that body-part harvesting ? *That* is what so many of us are finding horrifying about Planned Parenthood’s ethics and morals …

    This particular video is just one of a series showing the pattern of unconcern about ethical and moral matters being displayed by Planned Parenthood – at what point will you (and Mrs Carlito) say “Enough !” ?

    I know that *I* find it troubling how easily so many people support Margaret Sanger’s explicitly-professed beliefs and her wishes that “inferior humans” be prevented from breeding – which demographic groups are the main focus of Planned Parenthood’s efforts ? The people with whom I associate on a regular basis have nothing but contempt for Margaret Sanger’s beliefs, tied as closely as those beliefs were to skin colour …

    Alastor (2e7f9f)

  43. What’s with the leftist deal to equate miscarriage with abortion?

    Steve57 (5a07a9) — 8/12/2015 @ 9:50 am

    I’m not sure about leftists, but … in both cases, a pregnancy ends before birth? Why is the decision-maker for the pregnancy termination important to you?

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  44. fetal body-part harvesting on a 24-30 week old fetus, would you give your consent to that body-part harvesting ? *That* is what so many of us are finding horrifying about Planned Parenthood’s ethics and morals …

    Alastor (2e7f9f) — 8/12/2015 @ 9:56 am

    Why are you making this comment in response to a video which discusses abortions in the 12-15 week range? Why double the gestation time in order to ask your question?

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  45. 34.

    I think blacks are also more likely to have multiple abortions. Induced abortion is associated with an increased risk of a first trimester miscarriage in a subsequent pregnancy.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  46. Dana,

    I explained the reasoning. It’s fine if you disagree but please don’t act like there is no reason for current law.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  47. Dana @42, of mom wants to vote to donate her heart or liver or whatever to science, I am totally cool with it.

    …Actually, it seems that the donor does get a vote . . . and that vote is cast by the donor’s “mother…”

    Uhh, no. This formulation defies all sense and reason. By definition if someone else is casting the deciding vote for a third party, that third party is deprived of their vote.

    If “mom” donates some other person’s heart or liver or whatever to science it is murder pure and simple.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  48. 44. …Why is the decision-maker for the pregnancy termination important to you?

    carlitos (c24ed5) — 8/12/2015 @ 9:58 am

    You really want me to peel this onion?

    Do you really want to claim a death by cancer is the same as a shanking?

    I realize. You. Do. Not. Know. This.

    Hence the stupid, it burns.

    The mere fact that you go this far to avoid the whole question of individual human culpability is, breathtaking.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  49. In other words, Dana, I think it makes sense to say there are other incentives involved, and that you would vote for different laws as a result. But you need to deal with the fact that changing the law could result in creating incentives for people to be organ donation pimps who, like these PP folks, may not care about the best interests of the actual donor.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  50. Do you think this is a clever line of argumentation, carlitos?

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  51. The very practical economist Dana (f6a568) #42 – I had not pegged you for such a faithful believer in the application of the law no matter what the circumstance …

    The reason for having a law that makes illegal the sale of an organ is to keep it from becoming simple to coerce someone sufficiently-desperate to give up an organ … is a very hungry yet otherwise healthy person freely consenting to sell a kidney for $20K ? Or is that $20K effectively coercing that individual to sell that kidney ? For me, $100K would not start to be enough – for someone else, $200 can make a big difference in their life …

    And, from personal experience, as far as I have been able to tell, while it is true that the vast majority of unborn children do not decide when to leave the womb, it is equally true that the vast majority of pregnant mothers do not decide when the unborn child will leave the womb, either – most unborn children are born when Nature (or, if you prefer, biology) sends the signal that says “It’s time !” … Nature’s vote seems to outvote both unborn child and pregnant mother most of the time …

    Alastor (2e7f9f)

  52. Mr 57, adults cast votes for their children all the time, on where they go to school, on what they get to wear, on what they have to eat, on whether they have to go to the dentist. And current abortion law says that the “mother” gets to vote as to whether she is going to allow her unborn child to stay in her womb.

    If “mom” donates the organs of her aborted child, the murder occurred in the abortion itself, regardless of whether organs were harvested. All that this story does is illustrate how ghoulish the abortion industry is, which is certainly a good thing, but if the unborn child has already been killed, I fail to see what difference it makes how his body is disposed.

    The father Dana (f6a568)

  53. Carlitos – do you think the PP consent outline that they would alter the procedure to maximize the subsequent harvest? Or that they would be selling the clumps of tissue? I would bet my BMW that the consent form at the fertility clinic was more in depth and comprehensive than the generic PP one.

    JD (bad2bf)

  54. Dana, if “mom” casts a vote for child sacrifice, post-partum CPS steps in. I am confident that knocks your argument into a cocked hat.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  55. carlitos @44, what if there is no decision-maker.

    I’ve always been skeptical of the notion that there is no basis to believe there can be any system of morality without a god. And here you are, making my point without knowing.

    Is murder inherently wrong? According to you, no. A human being acting to artificially shorten a life is no worse than a natural phenom.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  56. Alastor wrote:

    The very practical economist Dana (f6a568) #42 – I had not pegged you for such a faithful believer in the application of the law no matter what the circumstance …

    The reason for having a law that makes illegal the sale of an organ is to keep it from becoming simple to coerce someone sufficiently-desperate to give up an organ … is a very hungry yet otherwise healthy person freely consenting to sell a kidney for $20K ? Or is that $20K effectively coercing that individual to sell that kidney ? For me, $100K would not start to be enough – for someone else, $200 can make a big difference in their life …

    oh, true enough, true enough . . . but so what? I, as a pretty healthy person, can consent to donating a kidney if I so choose, and that could make a very big difference in my life if the other one fails; it’s the taking of a risk which I could freely undertake.

    So, why not for money? If I could assume that risk freely, wouldn’t $100,000 not only make my life easier, but also be available for my expenses if the risk I assumed turns out to be a bad one?

    My cousin Kate donated a kidney, to a complete stranger, for free. She’s retired now, moved from Maine to Florida, and is soaking up the sunshine, but she has assumed a greater risk, and if she had another $100,000 in the bank, ‘twould make that greater risk less risky.

    Me? I might just get called for something like that; I was called for genetic testing for a possible bone marrow donation, but there was someone else who turned out to be a closer match. Still, my genetic profile is on record, and I could get asked to donate a kidney at some point; at that point, I’d have a really big decision to take! (Donating bone marrow is painful, but bone marrow regenerates, so it’s not a real life changer for the donor.)

    To me, you should be able to do whatever you want, as long as you don’t harm another person. How is charging money for a kidney harming another person?

    The extremely practical Dana (f6a568)

  57. You leftists really want to go with the argument that a miscarriage and an abortion are morally indistinguishable?

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  58. Dana, how is it that you keep confusing yourself with someone else?

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  59. Mr 57 wrote:

    Dana, if “mom” casts a vote for child sacrifice, post-partum CPS steps in. I am confident that knocks your argument into a cocked hat.

    Except, of course, that “mom” has already got the legal authority to cast a vote for child sacrifice, before the child is born naturally. Once aborted, her child is already dead. What difference, at that point, does it make?

    The extremely realistic Dana (f6a568)

  60. Steve57 – We seem to disagree on what a “life” is. That’s probably the central issue. Cancer victims and murder victims are people. Another poster above was conflating 12-15 week fetuses with viable persons, and you seem to be doing the same in your posts above. In other words…

    Is murder inherently wrong? According to you, no.
    Steve57 (5a07a9) — 8/12/2015 @ 10:27 am

    …is a complete straw man argument. You are arguing against something that I have not said.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  61. You must know, Dana, that I do not care for what the current state of the law allows.

    You seem to be allowing we are talking about child sacrifice.

    I am against child sacrifice in all its forms. Defend it if you must.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  62. carlitos #45 – I am very disappointed … I had thought better of you …

    The entire paragraph, in context, asks a simple question of *you* – it is not (just as it was not) ” this comment in response to a video which discusses abortions in the 12-15 week range” …

    I asked –

    “At the risk of interrupting that complacency, at how many weeks’ development *does* an abortion without feticide cause you concern – at least, sufficient concern to say “This is just plain and simply wrong !” ? If you and your lady wife were given a genuinely-informed consent, for fetal body-part harvesting on a 24-30 week old fetus, would you give your consent to that body-part harvesting ? *That* is what so many of us are finding horrifying about Planned Parenthood’s ethics and morals …”

    I would like to hope that, were you actually aware of the various stages of fetal development (particularly neurological development including when a fetus starts to be able to experience/feel discomfort and pain), you would not so blithely dismiss abortions without feticide (or even anesthesia) for the *fetus* …

    Weeks 11 – 14

    Your baby’s eyelids close and will not reopen until about the 28th week.
    Baby’s face is well-formed.
    Limbs are long and thin.
    Nails appear on the fingers and toes.
    Genitals appear.
    Baby’s liver is making red blood cells.
    The head is very large–about half of baby’s size.
    Your little one can now make a fist.
    Tooth buds appear for the baby teeth.

    Weeks 15 – 18

    At this stage, baby’s skin is almost transparent.
    Fine hair called lanugo develops on baby’s head.
    Muscle tissue and bones keep developing, and bones become harder.
    Baby begins to move and stretch.
    The liver and pancreas produce secretions.
    Your little one now makes sucking motions.

    and

    The stereotypical hormonal stress response of adults or older infants, of about 18 months onwards, reporting pain is observable in fetuses at 18 weeks’ gestation.

    carlitos – do you *still* consider abortions during the 11-18 weeks stages, as discussed in the featured video, to be completely kosher, and not in any way troubling to you ?

    (With apologies for the wall-o-text)

    Alastor (2e7f9f)

  63. Carlitos – do you think the PP consent outline that they would alter the procedure to maximize the subsequent harvest? Or that they would be selling the clumps of tissue? I would bet my BMW that the consent form at the fertility clinic was more in depth and comprehensive than the generic PP one.

    JD (bad2bf) — 8/12/2015 @ 10:17 am

    If there isn’t an additional risk to the patient, I’m not sure that she would care. Has there been shown to be additional risk with doctors varying the abortion procedure?

    As for your BMW, I’d rather not bet. I only vaguely remember the consent form, and could not say. Much like a would-be abortion recipient, I wasn’t reading very closely, focusing on the outcome, not the consent form.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  64. carlitos, did you or did you not equate a miscarriage to abortion?

    Yes or no.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  65. Dana, I’m very sorry to be on the opposite side of you on this.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  66. carlitos – do you *still* consider abortions during the 11-18 weeks stages, as discussed in the featured video, to be completely kosher, and not in any way troubling to you ?

    (With apologies for the wall-o-text)

    Alastor (2e7f9f) — 8/12/2015 @ 10:38 am

    You don’t seem to be getting it.

    Slippery slope / red herring – “24 – 30 weeks” were never discussed in this video.
    Appeal to Emotion – me “and my lady wife” don’t make abortion policy and are not medical professionals. “Fetus” in asterisks or quotation marks for effect.
    Straw Man – “blithely dismissing abortions,” “completely kosher,” “not in any way troubling.”

    If you’d care to reframe your arguments, I’ll continue to engage, but it might be sporadic given my afternoon schedule.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  67. DRJ wrote:

    In other words, Dana, I think it makes sense to say there are other incentives involved, and that you would vote for different laws as a result. But you need to deal with the fact that changing the law could result in creating incentives for people to be organ donation pimps who, like these PP folks, may not care about the best interests of the actual donor.

    When I was asked to undergo further testing to see if I was a good bone marrow donor match, I was asked by a person who was being paid to match recipients with possible donors. Now, he was (probably) paid only what a regular office worker got in his area, but he was being paid nevertheless. When you make an argument concerning “organ donation pimps,” you aren’t saying that no one should get paid, but only that nobody should make too much money on this.

    The cold-heartedly realistic Dana (f6a568)

  68. I had a weird dream last night. Cecil the lion was taunting me.

    “go ahead, shoot me.”

    I had an over/under 12 guage and I, like Cecil, thought he was just a little bit out of range for birdshot. I wasn’t going to be able to reload.

    Had Cecil taken just a couple more steps toward me, I’d have had him.

    Da&^ Cecil.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  69. carlitos, did you or did you not equate a miscarriage to abortion?

    Yes or no.

    Steve57 (5a07a9) — 8/12/2015 @ 10:38 am

    Not exactly, but I’ll admit to using a bit of hyperbole and sarcasm.

    in new york more black babies are aborted than born alive…

    sound awake (beb21b) — 8/12/2015 @ 9:07 am

    According to the source, this group also had the highest rate of “spontaneous terminations” (miscarriage) vs. other demographics. I guess that God is also in on the conspiracy to abort black babies.

    carlitos (c24ed5) — 8/12/2015 @ 9:46 am

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  70. Again, death is not an unjust punishment and I don’t give a crap what the “law” says.

    Law said slaves were OK too. Was not until bullets were lodged in the heads of men that this matter was settled.

    Sad fact.

    Rodney King's Spirit (9225a4)

  71. Mr 57 wrote:

    Dana, I’m very sorry to be on the opposite side of you on this.

    If we all agreed on everything, this would be a very boring site! 🙂

    As for me, once the law has allowed the “mother” to kill her unborn child, what worse can actually happen? Once the child has been killed, do you think he cares about whether his liver is sold off?

    This scandal is useful for demonstrating the ghoulishness and smarminess of abortionists, but it’s really not even as bad as their “primary” function.

    The coldly realistic Dana (f6a568)

  72. No, Carlitos, we get it. You don’t want to answer the question. We also know why.

    Steve Malynn (6b1ce5)

  73. carlitos and Devil’s Advocate Dana, if you don’t understand it, you won’t even if we explain it to you. It is not a utilitarian question. If it were, Soylent Green would be people and Californian’s would be put in juicers to ease the drought. It is collective morality and sensibility, human dignity, and the aesthetics of existence above the biological machine level.

    nk (dbc370)

  74. The extremely practical Dana (f6a568) #57 – “So, why not for money?”

    While that is a good question for discussion, the answers are less simple …

    My answer starts with the realisation that I do not know of a human society where some things (which are legal to do for free) have not been coerced by third parties for the profit of the third party, while at the same time being to the detriment of the first and/or second party … as an example, sex, which is legal and free, ends up being coerced by pimps such that their ‘stable’ of prostitutes are coerced to sell that same otherwise-free sex …

    To use another example, one not tied to the highly-emotionally-charged sexual side – property insurance is a product which can be freely chosen or not chosen by individuals … and yet, that useful service exists in parallel with that group whose representatives may visit a business and introduce themselves with phrases like “A nice business you have here. It would be a shame if anything bad happened to it, wouldn’t it ?” or “You have such beautiful grandchildren. It would be a shame if something very bad happened to them, now, wouldn’t it ?”
    … one is legal and useful, while the other is coercive …

    What answer does The extremely practical Dana have for such a problem ?

    Alastor (2e7f9f)

  75. @70, since you did use hyperbole I am forced to answer that a human and non-human agent of death are not equal.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  76. i used to work at this one like Planned Parenthood and they used to play hide the fetal tissue games where one person would put like a fetus on their head and close their eye and then they’d say marco and then we’d all say polo and if the fetus falled off their head they had to take a shot

    the first time i fainted but after that I got kinda good at it but then i heard payless was hiring for assistant manager and you get a discount on shoes

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  77. close their *eyes* i mean

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  78. @70, since you did use hyperbole I am forced to answer that a human and non-human agent of death are not equal.

    Steve57 (5a07a9) — 8/12/2015 @ 11:05 am

    “Death” implies that there is a life involved. As I said above, we disagree on what this means. I’m happy to leave it there.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  79. carlitos #67 – I’ll try once more …

    carlitos – do you *still* consider abortions during the 11-18 weeks stages, as discussed in the featured video, to be completely kosher, and not in any way troubling to you ?

    “Slippery slope / red herring – “24 – 30 weeks” were never discussed in this video.” – which is why I carefully phrased the quoted question to ask about “abortions during the 11-18 weeks stages”

    “Appeal to Emotion – me “and my lady wife” don’t make abortion policy and are not medical professionals. “Fetus” in asterisks or quotation marks for effect.” – my question, again as quoted, is addressed explicitly to *you* – carlitos – so why are you attempting to misdirect ?

    “Straw Man – “blithely dismissing abortions,” “completely kosher,” “not in any way troubling.”” – I am directly addressing your points as you are making them … is there a reason that you are not according me the equivalent respect, carlitos ?

    Alastor (2e7f9f)

  80. carlitos #67 – I’ll try once more …

    carlitos – do you *still* consider abortions during the 11-18 weeks stages, as discussed in the featured video, to be completely kosher, and not in any way troubling to you ?

    Alastor (2e7f9f) — 8/12/2015 @ 11:20 am

    I *still* haven’t ever said that I consider “abortions during the 11-18 weeks stages, as discussed in the featured video, to be completely kosher, and not in any way troubling to me.” Why do you keep asking if I “still” believe something that I haven’t said in the first place?

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  81. 79. …“Death” implies that there is a life involved. As I said above, we disagree on what this means. I’m happy to leave it there.

    carlitos (c24ed5) — 8/12/2015 @ 11:19 am

    I believe the question of life can be established, if only for the purpose of issuing death certificates.

    I am curious why I’m the science denier and you’re not.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  82. Steve57, you must understand that to a leftist if you don’t believe in AGW you’re a science denier, however, if you do believe a baby in the womb which will develop into a person is in fact a person you are also a science denier. No one claimed they are logical. Especially when AGW is a theory not a fact, but it is a fact the “mass of tissue” will be a person.

    That said any profit from the sale of baby parts should go to the parents. Yes, half goes to the father without whom those parts would not be possible. Also since the left has determined that it is not human is there any reason one cannot make Dead Baby Stew if they choose? Finally, leftists eating their own…literally!

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  83. Mr. Reverend you gettin the incentives all messed up

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  84. You know, there are more than two attitudes on abortion, and a majority of the population accepts first trimester abortions for one reason or another. That does not mean that they accept a tissue-processing industry. Even those that might support it for stem cells to treat disease won’t if they become convinced that there are better ways to get stem cells.

    I abhor abortions after viability and think all abortions are a particularly sloppy way to go about firth control (i.e. I will judge). But I see lots more in the world to worry about than first trimester abortions. I think many people feel similarly.

    But this crap just sucks.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  85. this crap does NOT suck Mr. M

    that is an arbitrary opinion, and a rather dramatic one if you ask me

    in a nutshell

    Congress passed a law saying it’s ok to collect fetal tissue and let researchers pay the peopel what collect it for their time and trouble

    what these videos show is pretty much what you would think that would like that

    i’m remindered of chris rock’s thing about how

    white people LOVE to be shocked

    that’s all this is I think

    blah blah blah blah blah

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  86. pay the *people* what collect it i mean

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  87. The shock at this reminds me of the shock that energy was being generated by the burning of medical waste, when burning medical waste is the law.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  88. yes yes same same

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  89. Alastor wrote:

    My answer starts with the realisation that I do not know of a human society where some things (which are legal to do for free) have not been coerced by third parties for the profit of the third party, while at the same time being to the detriment of the first and/or second party … as an example, sex, which is legal and free, ends up being coerced by pimps such that their ‘stable’ of prostitutes are coerced to sell that same otherwise-free sex …

    The very need to work, which is perfectly legal to do for free, is coerced in every human society, coerced by the specter of starvation.

    As for prostitutes, who’s to say that if it were legal, the pimps wouldn’t lose much of their power?

    At some point, you have to face the fact that the morality we try to legislate doesn’t seem to work very well; we cannot anticipate every individual situation, and wind up with laws which cover all of society but don’t do much good individually. The only reason I am so opposed to drugs (and alcohol) is that their use wrecks havoc on society, primarily children, because most adults wind up having to care for children at some point. If it weren’t for that, I’d say, go right ahead and fry your brains, but don’t expect society to pay for your rehab or your food.

    The Devil's Advocate Dana (f6a568)

  90. Apologies to teh Beatles!

    Wish you were here to dance to a song
    That was a hit before your body was torn
    Though it was torn a long, long time ago
    These Mothers won’t know (your Mother won’t)
    These Mothers won’t know.

    Sing it again

    Wish you were here to dance to a song
    That was a hit before your body was sold
    Though it was sold a long long time ago
    These Mothers don’t know (your Mother don’t)
    These Mothers don’t know.

    Selling your heart and lungs they will
    A pretty penny made, their coffers they’ll fill
    Though you were sold a long long time ago
    These Mother won’t know (your Mother won’t)
    These Mothers won’t know.

    Colonel Haiku (b624c3)

  91. The Imam Barack Hussein Hoagie wrote:

    That said any profit from the sale of baby parts should go to the parents. Yes, half goes to the father without whom those parts would not be possible. Also since the left has determined that it is not human is there any reason one cannot make Dead Baby Stew if they choose? Finally, leftists eating their own…literally!

    Alas! The law is that the father sperm donor has absotively, posilutely no say whatsoever in whether the baby is killed in the first place; it’s difficult to see how he could claim half of the profits.

    The extremely snarky Dana (f6a568)

  92. I take a certain amount of satisfaction, feets and carlitos, that you don’t understand that that what we are discussing is inhumane. And that in order to defend it, one must display their inhumanity. And in a classic demonstration of un-self-awareness, you do.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  93. 88.The shock at this reminds me of the shock that energy was being generated by the burning of medical waste, when burning medical waste is the law.
    carlitos (c24ed5) — 8/12/2015 @ 12:42 pm

    As Heinz said at Nuremburg: The shock of this reminds me of the shock that energy was being generated by the burning of Jews, when burning Jews is the law.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  94. As for prostitutes, who’s to say that if it were legal, the pimps wouldn’t lose much of their power?

    Prostitution is legal in Nevada, although each county decides whether to legalize it or not. Some sex workers claim the brothels are worse than any pimp, because they are legal.

    I acknowledged above that there are arguments on both sides of these issues. I wish you would do the same.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  95. Specifically, I wish you would acknowledge that making behavior legal leads to more of it. If you legalize prostitution, you will get more of it. If you legalize drugs, you will get more of it. If you legalize selling body parts, you will get more of it. Maybe one or more of these is worth it, but acting like it won’t change anything is a non-starter for me.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  96. And the devaluing of humanity continues into the new millennium. I hoped that we would have evolved much better after seeing what was wrought by the left in the last century. No such luck. They’re just picking up where Sanger, Mengele and Adolf left off. Gotta give the leftists credit, whether it’s dissing God or killing people they never give up.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  97. There is no indication that alcohol consumption was seriously depressed during Prohibition. What happened was that CASUAL drinking ended, but purposeful drinking did not.

    See here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/images/pa-157a.gif

    While there was a sudden drop in alcohol consumption initially, that had more to do with supply disruption than desire. Within a few years, alcohol consumption had risen to almost the levels of the prior years.

    Was this decrease a success? If you consider the intended results — decreased drunkedness and family stability — it did nothing. The slight drop in per capita consumption was solely due to people who could take it or leave it alone, leaving it alone. The problem drinks were still at it.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  98. Did making opiates illegal decrease their use? Somehow, I doubt it. Probably depends on the time period you measure.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  99. I agree, Kevin M., but I don’t agree that alcohol consumption is the equivalent of any kind of drug use, prostitution, or selling body parts. There may be valid comparisons so it might make sense to make some drugs legal, or to legalize some kinds of prostitution, or to legalize the process of selling body parts in some situations. But I think the only way we have a reasonable discussion about this is to acknowledge that prostitution, drugs, and body parts are not always comparable to alcohol. For example, selling blood may work, just as making alcohol legal works. But these are not the same as selling kidneys or livers.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  100. DRJ wrote:

    Specifically, I wish you would acknowledge that making behavior legal leads to more of it. If you legalize prostitution, you will get more of it. If you legalize drugs, you will get more of it. If you legalize selling body parts, you will get more of it. Maybe one or more of these is worth it, but acting like it won’t change anything is a non-starter for me.

    Oh, absolutely, but saying that we will get more of things that are legal does not mean that we ought to make illegal things to do for money that are perfectly legal to do for free.

    If we make it legal for people to donate organs for cash, perhaps we’ll get more organ donations; would you see that as a bad result?

    The extremely honest Dana (f6a568)

  101. There has not been a successful national alcohol policy ever.

    There is a reason all police power should be local.

    You want to see effective alcohol policies, let localities decide blue laws, get the state out of granting alcohol licenses.

    You will have dry towns, and party towns, and citizens will get to decide where they want to go. What a concept.

    Steve Malynn (6b1ce5)

  102. There are some things in our Brave New World that just make me walk away from Omelas.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  103. It seems to me that libertarians address problems from the standard of the reasonable person. For example, a reasonable person would use alcohol, drugs, prostitution, and sell body parts in a responsible, cost-effective, utilitarian manner. S/he would do what pleased him but not to excess, or if s/he did do things to excess, then s/he would bear the burden of addressing the consequences.

    I would love to live in a world where everyone is a responsible adult, but we don’t live in that world. Instead, responsible adults bear the burden of fixing what irresponsible children and adults mess up. I didn’t want limits on what I could do when I was a teenager/twenty-something. But I wanted limits after I was in my thirties and (1) had to pay for society, and (2) had children who could be hurt by other people that make questionable decisions.

    I have faith in people but only to a point.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  104. Mr 57 wrote:

    I take a certain amount of satisfaction, feets and carlitos, that you don’t understand that that what we are discussing is inhumane. And that in order to defend it, one must display their inhumanity. And in a classic demonstration of un-self-awareness, you do.

    And my position is that abortion itself is the inhumanity, the slaughter. But once an unborn child has been killed, I don’t see what difference it makes what happens with the leftover “tissue.”

    Perhaps someone here knows: does a woman going in for an abortion have to sign some sort of release divesting herself of ownership of the “womb contents removed,” or is it simply “medical waste” legally, which the abortion “clinic” must dispose of in regulated ways?

    The Dana who doesn't disagree with Steve as much as Steve believes (f6a568)

  105. I agree with Steve Malynn. If Boulder CO wants legalized marijuana, more power to them and I hope it works out. But I don’t want to live there.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  106. I’m pretty sure that we already have dry towns and party towns and that citizens can decide where they want to go.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  107. Dana:

    And my position is that abortion itself is the inhumanity, the slaughter. But once an unborn child has been killed, I don’t see what difference it makes what happens with the leftover “tissue.”

    Because if you make the products of abortion more valuable, it will lead to more abortions. Supply and Demand 101.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  108. At some point, you have to face the fact that the morality we try to legislate doesn’t seem to work very well;

    I disagree. Our orderly society has worked well for 200 years, and part of the reason is that people largely agreed to a moral code supporting that order. I can see reasons to change it now and then. Look at other societies, especially modern societies, and tell me which are better.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  109. DRJ wrote:

    I would love to live in a world where everyone is a responsible adult, but we don’t live in that world. Instead, responsible adults bear the burden of fixing what irresponsible children and adults mess up. I didn’t want limits on what I could do when I was a teenager/twenty-something. But I wanted limits after I was in my thirties and (1) had to pay for society, and (2) had children who could be hurt by other people that make questionable decisions.

    I have faith in people but only to a point.

    That is a statement which could have been written by any leftist advocating gun control; we must have limits, limits! on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because there are murders being committed out there!

    The argument you are using to justify your positions has been used many, many different times by the left, for so very many things.

    The Dana who sees the parallels (f6a568)

  110. Don’t the products of conception belong to the manufacturer?

    ropelight (7728ba)

  111. DRJ wrote:

    And my position is that abortion itself is the inhumanity, the slaughter. But once an unborn child has been killed, I don’t see what difference it makes what happens with the leftover “tissue.”

    Because if you make the products of abortion more valuable, it will lead to more abortions. Supply and Demand 101.

    That would be the case only if the “mother” were the recipient of the profits; the abortion “clinics” would have to incentivize the mothers to induce more to come in.

    The economist Dana (f6a568)

  112. DRJ wrote:

    At some point, you have to face the fact that the morality we try to legislate doesn’t seem to work very well;

    I disagree. Our orderly society has worked well for 200 years, and part of the reason is that people largely agreed to a moral code supporting that order. I can see reasons to change it now and then. Look at other societies, especially modern societies, and tell me which are better.

    Society’s morals worked well when they were enforced by societal pressure and stigmatization of violators; that is why I have stressed that the proper behavior ought to be to totally ostracize everyone who works at an abortuary. It was when those broke down and only the law constrained immorality that it dodn’t seem to work so well.

    The historian Dana (f6a568)

  113. Society’s morals worked well when they were enforced by societal pressure and stigmatization of violators;

    The historian Dana (f6a568) — 8/12/2015 @ 2:14 pm

    Well, societal pressures also drowned witches, put drunkards in the stocks and kept the coloreds out of town at night … 🙂

    Drive safe.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  114. I completely agree with your “Ostracize them!” theory, Dana, but sadly we don’t have shame anymore.

    That is a statement which could have been written by any leftist advocating gun control; we must have limits, limits! on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because there are murders being committed out there!

    Of course it could, and we do have limits on guns. There are some you can’t own. There are places you can’t take them. There are people who can’t own guns. I don’t agree with all the restrictions but there are restrictions on every right. It’s called balancing in legal terms and we do it all the time.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  115. That would be the case only if the “mother” were the recipient of the profits; the abortion “clinics” would have to incentivize the mothers to induce more to come in.

    Maybe that would happen, too, if the price were high enough. But we know the clinics would try to skirt the law if the price is right, because they are doing it in these videos. Imagine what they might do if it were legal.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  116. As I see it, Dana, the debate isn’t about whether we have limits on what government and people can do in society. The debate is on where to draw the lines. We are going to have limits on what we can spend and what we can do because that’s the nature of society. The hard part is figuring out where and what those limits should be.

    My goal is to authorize the federal government to act where it should — such as securing the borders, national security, and other Constitutionally-authorized powers — and to return to the idea that most rights and powers lie with the People or the States. Most government power should be local, and I don’t see the value in rejecting all government authority in an effort to keep the federal government in check.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  117. 115. …Well, societal pressures also drowned witches, put drunkards in the stocks and kept the coloreds out of town at night … 🙂

    Drive safe.

    carlitos (c24ed5) — 8/12/2015 @ 2:20 pm

    If only society had been smart enough to resist societal pressure and put you in charge.

    Oh.

    Wait.

    That would have been society.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  118. #115… ya got a problem with that, Carlitos?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  119. Explain how things would have been so much better if we resisted our natural impulses and put you in charge, carlitos.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  120. That is crazy talk, DRJ

    JD (bad2bf)

  121. If people want to live in a city of state that has heavy government regulation, so be it. We need places that demonstrate what does and doesn’t work. Our problem is we have a federal government that tries to institutionalize those choices and spread them out to the rest of the country. It’s the national version of the healthcare single-payer debate, only it applies to everything.

    I wish the answer were to “no regulations.” Reagan did it with the air traffic controllers but we were a different nation then. Now the battle is to push back against federal government authority and try to move those decisions to the state and local levels, where people have more power to affect what happens. It was hard for conservatives to fight that battle in Wisconsin but they did, and they succeeded, because the grassroots has more power in their own communities than at the federal level.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  122. Sorry for the rant.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  123. 124. Sorry for the rant.

    DRJ (1dff03) — 8/12/2015 @ 3:58 pm

    Thank you for the rant. I want to make you a zabaglione.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  124. Steve57, what would DRJ do with an ice rink cleaning machine?

    Gazzer (531e19)

  125. I heart rants

    JD (3b5483)

  126. Good question, Gazzer.

    I withdraw the offer.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  127. I can see how a Zabaglione could be confused with a Zamboni.

    6 egg yolks
    4 1⁄2 tablespoons sugar
    7 tablespoons marsala wine

    Beat egg yolks and sugar together until fluffy.
    Add wine gradually, continuing to beat.
    Cook in top of double boiler over water until the thickness of cream, stirring constantly.
    Cool, pour into parfait glasses and chill.

    Unless I’m wrong, less wine goes into the making of a Zamboni.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  128. There is a lot of certitude on the Internet I find tedious, but there remains one certainty I appreciate: DRJ taking the time to share her opinions. Whether one agrees or does not, DRJ’s opinions are calm, measured, and polite. Very much worth thinking about.

    Thank you, ma’am.

    You class the place up.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  129. Simon, it’s one of life’s great mysteries how DRJ sometimes end up on the same side.

    I take it neither she nor I will be voting for Hillary!

    David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog 52m52 minutes ago

    Hillary/Snowden 2016

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  130. It’s an open question who turned more material over to Putin.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  131. I would love to try that recipe, Steve57. As for my opinions and temperament, thanks but I’vdlearned from many wiser people — including the host and several commenters at this website.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  132. Holly O’Donnell, ex-Procurement Technician for StemExpress opens up about the supply side of the “business:

    Has anyone asked Holly what StemExpress does with the baby remains? I keep hearing about the nebulous medical research, but then there’s nothing to show for all this research.

    The baby parts aren’t useful for their stated use, so why buy them? And who is buying them?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  133. DRJ,

    I do not see why there is a prohibition against selling part of your liver. Many liver transplants are now from living donors. Why should they NOT get paid for their trouble (which includes several months of recover) and risk of death from major surgery.

    IF the argument is that this would mean that poor people can’t afford transplants, I’ll point out that such a payment would be only a small part of the cost. Suppose insurance companies had to pay a flat rate to the donor (say $20K). The rest of the procedure costs more than that, and I’ll betcha that the hospital and doctors aren’t going to do it for free. Why should the donor?

    This goes even more for a kidney donor.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  134. The baby parts aren’t useful for their stated use, so why buy them? And who is buying them?

    Two words… Donald. Trump.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  135. Not that there is a good arfument regarding “poor people can’t pay” given the rest of the medical system.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  136. #136. For breakfast.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  137. Time for a class action lawsuit against PP for misappropriating baby parts and selling them without compensation to the owners. Every woman who had an abortion from the first sale would be eligible to collect damages.

    ropelight (7728ba)

  138. Two words… Donald. Trump.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 8/12/2015 @ 5:07 pm

    Can I get a second opinion?

    You can tell when a politician is going to flame out early by checking who papertiger likes.

    Long track record. Tested and true.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  139. hi holly welcome to your first day at work

    howdy ho co-worker!

    okey dokey holly so here comes our first fetus we have to get some kidneys if we can

    *thunk*

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  140. @133, if you like it I’ll tell you my recipe for Pere al Vino Rosso.

    Or, you can just google it. It’s not like I have any secrets any more.

    A Polish Hunter’s Stew, Pere al vino Rosso, and some hot mulled wine makes for a fine Winter evening.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  141. feets, I have been hired under less than honest circumstances. I was told we had a product to sell. It turned out there was no product. What they really wanted me to do was find out what product was in demand, come back and tell them, and see if the engineers could figure out how to build it.

    I left after three months.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  142. they didn’t tell me i was gonna be the procurement guy for our department

    trickers

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  143. Allahpundit says CNN has Trump up by double digits in Iowa. And he hates Trump as much or maybe more than Beldar.

    Crash coming. Just a matter of time.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  144. No, wait, I guess despite the internet I still do have secrets.

    I think most of the internet recipes will get you close, but you have to throw in a handful of anise seeds. Also, a whole garlic, which you wouldn’t think would work with a dessert but if you don’t cut it up it adds a nutty flavor.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  145. Kevin M,

    I don’t know if we should legalize the buying and selling of organs. I’m sure there are pros and cons, but my point is there are reasons it is currently illegal. I think a reasonable debate would acknowledge there are trade-offs that come with either choice.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  146. As usual, I forgot to close the link tag. My apologies.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  147. Also, if we legalize payments for organ procurement, wouldn’t that make it less likely science will develop man-made or synthetic alternatives to transplant organs?

    DRJ (1dff03)

  148. I have always had issue with people claiming “slippery slope” to be a fallacy, when it is, in fact, a reality. It fits right in with Newton’s Laws, namely everything goes to entropy. That is slippery slope codified into scientific law (and not theory).

    John Hitchcock (2826e7)

  149. only if you do not queasy easily
    http://www.barnhardt.biz/2015/08/05/where-this-will-eventually-end-up-fetal-cannibalism/

    The warning is meant very seriously. There are some graphic photos at the link.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  150. DRJ earlier:

    It seems to me that libertarians address problems from the standard of the reasonable person. For example, a reasonable person would use alcohol, drugs, prostitution, and sell body parts in a responsible, cost-effective, utilitarian manner. S/he would do what pleased him but not to excess, or if s/he did do things to excess, then s/he would bear the burden of addressing the consequences.

    I disagree. The libertarian view is more on the lines of,The fact that unreasonable people make bad choices is not a reason to outlaw bad choices, and by outlawing bad choices you invariably limit the ability to make good choices.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  151. I agree but the conservative response is that some choices are too costly to individuals or society. The key is to keep those choices as few as possible.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  152. In other words, I think libertarians are willing to accept the chance of unreasonable people and their bad choices as the cost of freedom. I like that in theory but not practice. In practice, I look for a more balanced approach between freedom and avoiding bad choices.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  153. I don’t think libertarians want government to step in and save people from themselves, so either you accept bad choices as a cost of freedom or you’re saying people should be reasonable and when they aren’t, it’s their problem.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  154. I don’t know why Libertarians ever left Libertaria to come live in our oppressive prison of a country.

    nk (dbc370)

  155. 156.
    Both in a way.Bad choices are the cost of freedom, and those who make bad choices, not the rest of us, should pay the Piper.

    kishnevi (294553)

  156. Also, if we legalize payments for organ procurement, wouldn’t that make it less likely science will develop man-made or synthetic alternatives to transplant organs?

    No, it will just set a market price for those things to be realistic. I would expect them to start with hearts and eyes and such — things that people don’t part with for anything.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  157. DRJ,

    Otherwise reasonable people find themselves in trouble with alcohol. It has very little to do with willpower or intention either, if Buzz Aldrin’s lost decade is any indicator.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  158. Do you think this is a clever line of argumentation, carlitos?

    Since there’s not much left to say about how hard-bitten the pro-choice (or, apparently, pro-abortion) crowd is, certainly at Planned Parenthood, the only thing left to ponder is if a high percentage of folks who are big devotees of environmentalism (as Carlitos is) tend to also be rather blase or even cavalier about the treatment of human fetuses.

    I don’t ask that to be sarcastic or as a “gotcha!,” but because there does seem to be an emotional link between a person’s love of Mother Gaia and, in turn, that person’s annoyance with humans who mess up the peace and tranquility of Earth.

    In turn, there’s the interesting irony of how plenty of liberals also are enablers to the squalid aspects of downwardly mobility, or, if you will, Third World-ism (ie, the environmental degradation of such sections of our planet), and also Al-Sharpton type of hucksterism, yet pray at the altar of Green Earth and Margaret-Sanger type of abortion practices—where a disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are non-white.

    Mark (9abec5)

  159. DRJ wrote:

    As I see it, Dana, the debate isn’t about whether we have limits on what government and people can do in society. The debate is on where to draw the lines. We are going to have limits on what we can spend and what we can do because that’s the nature of society. The hard part is figuring out where and what those limits should be.

    And that is completely at odds with our Constitution . . . but perfectly in line with what the Democrats advocate.

    Our Constitution says that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,” yet that is exactly what the left want to do, to criminalize hate speech, to restrict political speech and campaign spending. Our Constitution says that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” but that’s just what the left want to do, isn’t it?

    When you are “figuring out where and what those limits should be,” beyond saying that one person’s rights do not allow him to infringe upon the rights of someone else, you are not protecting rights at all, but are surrendering the argument that the government should have over the lives of the individual to the left, and simply dickering over how much control.

    John: “Would you copulate with me for a million dollars?”
    Jane: “Why, yes, I would!”
    John: “How about for $20?”
    Jane: “What kind of girl do you think I am?”
    John: “We’ve already established that; all we’re doing now is negotiating over the price.”

    The Dana back this morning (f6a568)

  160. The light at the end of his rope wrote:

    Time for a class action lawsuit against PP for misappropriating baby parts and selling them without compensation to the owners. Every woman who had an abortion from the first sale would be eligible to collect damages.

    Highly dubious, given that the “patients” already expect the “clinics” to dispose of the “evacuated womb contents.” Has any abortion “patient” ever asked for her “womb contents” to be returned?

    The economist Dana (f6a568)

  161. DRJ wrote:

    As I see it, Dana, the debate isn’t about whether we have limits on what government and people can do in society. The debate is on where to draw the lines. We are going to have limits on what we can spend and what we can do because that’s the nature of society. The hard part is figuring out where and what those limits should be.

    And she also wrote:

    My uninformed opinion is against, but only because I hate to give the government one more reason to regulate healthcare. It’s one thing to outlaw a procedure but it’s another to regulate it. Regulation gives government too many ways to pick winners and losers.

    To me, those statements contradict each other. The first states that government can regulate what people can and cannot do in society, beyond the point of simply protecting people from having their rights violated by others, while the second is hostile to regulations.

    The Dana seeking clarification: (f6a568)

  162. DRJ asked:

    Also, if we legalize payments for organ procurement, wouldn’t that make it less likely science will develop man-made or synthetic alternatives to transplant organs?

    That would depend on the available profits and risks involved. If the price for a transplanted organ is high, it would encourage such artificial organ development, because the profits would be there, and there is far less risk that the patient would reject the organ. It’s only if the prices are low that the incentive is gone.

    The economist Dana (f6a568)

  163. Historically, dead bodies, or parts detached from living bodies, have not been free market commodities. Societies took a very strong interest in their disposal for hygienic, religious and superstitious reasons. With transplants and cloning we will need new laws. Unless the Supreme Court rules that the Civil War was fought so that General Hood would be free to buy a new arm and leg.

    nk (dbc370)

  164. #115… ya got a problem with that, Carlitos?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 8/12/2015 @ 3:18 pm

    As a drunkard, I object to the stocks, yes.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  165. DRJ wrote, over three consecutive comments:

    I agree but the conservative response is that some choices are too costly to individuals or society. The key is to keep those choices as few as possible. In other words, I think libertarians are willing to accept the chance of unreasonable people and their bad choices as the cost of freedom. I like that in theory but not practice. In practice, I look for a more balanced approach between freedom and avoiding bad choices. I don’t think libertarians want government to step in and save people from themselves, so either you accept bad choices as a cost of freedom or you’re saying people should be reasonable and when they aren’t, it’s their problem.

    On Sunday the 2nd, I was ticketed, ruining my day, by an absolute asshole of a park ranger, for not having a life jacket in my kayak on the lake. As far as I am concerned, it is none of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s business whether I fall overboard and drown. The park ranger was armed, and has the authority of a state policeman, so I couldn’t just walk away from him.

    As a conservative, I am supposed to respect the police, and I do . . . when they are protecting people from the violation of their rights by others. But most of the time they are simply acting as revenue agents for the state, writing tickets and fining people for things which should never be any of the state’s fornicating business.

    Even now, eleven days later, I still hope, seriously hope, that that ranger has a car accident which leaves him with third degree burns over 60% of his body. When the bitch at the Municipal Court wished me a nice day after I paid the fine — $120.50 — I yelled at her that she had already ruined my day and that she should be ashamed for working there.

    I don’t think libertarians want government to step in and save people from themselves, so either you accept bad choices as a cost of freedom or you’re saying people should be reasonable and when they aren’t, it’s their problem.

    The Dana still enraged about this (f6a568)

  166. The last sentence in my previous comment was actually part of DRJ’s quote.

    The Dana who made an editing error. (f6a568)

  167. Kishnevi wrote:

    Bad choices are the cost of freedom, and those who make bad choices, not the rest of us, should pay the Piper.

    Exactly correct.

    The libertarian Dana (f6a568)

  168. I know that human memory is a plastic thing, but I remember when they first passed the seat belt law in Illinois. They promised that you would never, ever be pulled over only for a seat belt violation; it would only be an extra ticket for something else. Now there are billboards reminding you that you can get pulled over for a trooper not seeing your shoulder belt. On the other hand, IL is still a non-helmet law state for bikers.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  169. But most of the time they are simply acting as revenue agents for the state, writing tickets and fining people for things which should never be any of the state’s fornicating business.

    Boy, ain’t that the truth. Plus, they write the laws, such as seat belt laws, so it gives them probable cause to check everything just looking for something to cash in on. They took drunk driving laws and turned them into a cash cow for the municipalities and states and lawyers. And it’s all BS. If they were serious about stopping drunk driving all that’s needed is a federal law requiring the ignition interlock system they require for DUI’s as standard on all cars. They don’t want that for two reasons. First they’d lose the DUI revenue. Second the lawyers, judges, cops and politicians wouldn’t be able to start their cars for work half the time.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  170. To the enraged Dana…may I remind you that it would be scuba divers on the Pennsylvania payroll who would be searching for your body if, God forbid, you did drown?

    But despite that your general premise is sound. It should be the kayaker who decides if the level of risk warrants a life jacket, since it is the kayaker who will drown if the risk is not correctly evaluated.

    kishnevi (93670d)

  171. They did the same thing in Pennsylvania, carlitos. That’s why the slippery slope always comes true. Well, that and the fact that all politicians and lawyers are liars.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  172. Dana 164,

    I am hostile to federal regulations in areas where the Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate or act, IMO like healthcare. However, that does not prevent the States from regulating what the federal government can’t.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  173. The traffic code is too complicated. We need a flat road tax.

    carlitos, I remember the Illinois seat belt law very well. I had just won a Fourth Amendment case of first impression in Illinois. My client was pulled over with a machine gun and a pound of marijuana based on an anonymous phone call. I would have lost under the existing seat belt law. But now, even that is academic after California v. Navarette. It was nice while it lasted, though.

    nk (dbc370)

  174. And perhaps, to link back to the original post, Rev. Hoagie, your observation is applicable to the PP scandal.

    As I understand it, Reagan made use of fetal tissue obtained from elective abortion illegal via regulatory power. In the 1990s Congress enacted a law which among other things override that regulation, allowing this whole fetal tissue marketplace to exist. Yet, despite the many crowd pleasing calls to defund PP, I have heard no one suggesting we change that law and return to the situation under Reagan, which would put StemExpress out if business, crimp PP, and most important ensure no one steps in to take PP’s place as a leading purveyor. Apparently there is no interest in doing that.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  175. However, that does not prevent the States from regulating what the federal government can’t.

    To which the libertarian retorts that state and local regulation and legislation can be just as suppressive of freedom as any federal imposition. So why is it good when the state does it?

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  176. Actually kishnevi, until you just posted that information I had no idea it existed. Frankly, I don’t think too many non-lawyers would know about that evolution in abortion parts.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  177. So why is it good when the state does it?

    First off nobody said it’s good, just better. Secondly because it’s more localized and much, much easier to change than federal law. Even better is municipal.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  178. Also, if I were making the rules, then I might well construe the rights to free speech, guns, religion, etc., to be as absolute as the Bill of Rights makes them sound. But that ship sailed long ago and there are limits on all those rights, e.g., there are limits on speech that incites or panics, and felons can’t have guns.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  179. Rev Hoagie, I knew about it from an article at Reason. I posted the link, and folks here seemed to have missed it.

    Here it is again.
    http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/30/will-planned-parenthood-be-defunded

    Planned Parenthood clinics don’t seem to be doing anything illegal, at least not broadly. Women who have abortions may lawfully donate the fetal tissue for scientific research, and clinics are allowed to receive reimbursement for the cost of things such as storage and transportation. In 1988, the Reagan administration banned the donation of fetal tissue from elective abortions, but the moratorium was lifted by Congress in 1993 as part of the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act. Several Republicans who have recently condemned Planned Parenthood for its fetal tissue program—including Sen. McConnell—voted for the 1993 bill.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  180. Several Republicans who have recently condemned Planned Parenthood for its fetal tissue program—including Sen. McConnell—voted for the 1993 bill.

    Shocka.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  181. Mr nevi wrote:

    To the enraged Dana…may I remind you that it would be scuba divers on the Pennsylvania payroll who would be searching for your body if, God forbid, you did drown?

    They could either wait until my body floated to the top in a few days, or consider it food for the fish. If they have to search, then charge my estate for the costs.

    The still angry Dana (f6a568)

  182. kishnevi,

    I would support that law, just as I supported Bush’s veto of the embryonic stem cell bill. We shouldn’t encourage research that imperils unborn babies. That’s also the basis for my earlier comment about the impact on science, since Bush’s veto resulted in discoveries that adult somatic cells could be induced to display properties consistent with embryonic stem cells.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  183. The DRJ channeling Patrick Henry wrote:

    I am hostile to federal regulations in areas where the Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate or act, IMO like healthcare. However, that does not prevent the States from regulating what the federal government can’t.

    That was exactly the contention of the anti-federalists, which forced the first Congress to offer the Bill of Rights amendments.

    James Madison took the existing state bills of rights as a guide, but actually made them stronger in the federal amendments; many of those state bills of rights used the language that the state “should not” or “ought not” violate certain rights, which Mr Madison and his brethren strengthened to “shall not.” Whether Mr Madison believed that the federal Bill of Rights bound the states as well — and the language of what is now the First Amendment specifically binds only Congress — we don’t really know, but the Supreme Court in Barron V Baltimore held that they did not.

    However, I see no qualitative difference in whether the states pass repugnant legislation as opposed to the federal government doing so, even if Mr Henry did.

    The historian Dana (f6a568)

  184. The videos suggest PP may be acting illegally by charging more than the law allows (to make a profit, not just recover its costs), and by not getting consent from the mothers.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  185. Why would they need to charge your estate for the costs since they are on the state payroll and are already paid from your taxes, Dana? So the deal is you pay every year if you don’t use the service then again when you do? Who came up with that idea, a democrat scuba diver?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  186. Dana and kishnevi,

    I get it, really I do. One of the reasons I love living in West Texas is that it and its residents are Libertarian as much, and maybe more, than conservative. Most people expect to be responsible for themselves. It makes everyone act more responsibly and it makes them better citizens and neighbors. If by some miracle Texas ever secedes, I hope we adopt Libertarian principles.

    But how many States are like this? Maybe New Hampshire, Idaho, and South Dakota. I know there are many citizens like this throughout the U.S., but most of the States aren’t like that and are trending even further away from those principles.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  187. The reason local and State regulations may be acceptable but federal regulations aren’t is (as Hoagie said) that it’s closer to the people, so we can experiment with ways to make society work but still have some control over the outcome and the leaders. In addition, different things work in different areas and populations. What works in Massachusetts might flop in Texas.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  188. The videos suggest PP may be acting illegally by charging more than the law allows (to make a profit, not just recover its costs), and by not getting consent from the mothers.

    i know you say “suggest” and “may”

    but the for reals evidence for this in the videos is slim slim slim

    evidence isn’t even the right word for these videos

    happyfeet (7b1a9e)

  189. I agree with putting power closer to the people, but we need checks and balances. There are a ton of dysfunctional municipalities where the local power base operates as a fiefdom, violates rights, misappropriates tax dollars, etc. It’s not completely hyperbolic to reference the Civil Rights-era South when having this discussion.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  190. Our raconteur restaurateur wrote:

    Why would they need to charge your estate for the costs since they are on the state payroll and are already paid from your taxes, Dana?

    Maybe they shouldn’t be on the state payroll in the first place. When the state needs a particular service that is intermittent in nature, hire a contractor. (A lot, but not all, of snow removal in Pennsylvania is done that way.)

    The libertarian Dana (f6a568)

  191. That’s why 13 States are investigating PP, happyfeet, so we can find out the facts.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  192. yes yes and they already been cleared in indiana and florida

    i think they gonna come out of this just fine

    probably even stronger if Kelly Clarkson is to be believed

    happyfeet (7b1a9e)

  193. is new hampshire, still a libertarian state, or has if been massified,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  194. it’s, whatever, the license plates, say, it is,

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  195. DRJ wrote:

    The reason local and State regulations may be acceptable but federal regulations aren’t is (as Hoagie said) that it’s closer to the people, so we can experiment with ways to make society work but still have some control over the outcome and the leaders.

    “(E)xperiment(ing) with ways to make society work” in ways that violate people’s rights is no more acceptable at the state or local level than at he federal one.

    The libertarian Dana (f6a568)

  196. You’re treading water in the middle of Lake Wallenpaupack. What are your rights?

    nk (dbc370)

  197. To swim for shore. If I don’t make it, it’s my responsibility.

    The Dana who's an excellent swimmer (f6a568)

  198. Breckenridge Elkins would approve, if he didn’t think that it was none of his business.

    nk (dbc370)

  199. Maybe they shouldn’t be on the state payroll in the first place. When the state needs a particular service that is intermittent in nature, hire a contractor. (A lot, but not all, of snow removal in Pennsylvania is done that way.)

    In my locale, they usually seem to be LEOs who are qualified scuba divers, and suit up as needed.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  200. apparently we don’t, or women generally,

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/08/13/do-we-care-about-boys-and-men/

    narciso (ee1f88)

  201. There was at last one state that took PP off its approved vendor list this past week and the StemCell research place voided its contracts with PP based on the last video.
    Though as mentioned above , if the woman wants the fetus gone why would permission to use it be needed?

    seeRpea (a7b697)

  202. Consent isn’t just a concern in the Planned Parenthood cases. It is also an issue in any kind of tissue and organ donation, especially now that organ procurement companies are allowed to solicit donations without identifying themselves and relying on presumptive consent. The medical community seems more concerned about the ethical issues this presents for the dying than for the unborn.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  203. There is also an effort to switch from an opt-in approach to organ donation to an opt-out system where everyone is presumed to consent to donation unless they affirmatively refuse in writing.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  204. I’m thinking about using JD’s approach. He calls folks Racist when any racial issue comes up, in order to illustrate how easy it is for emotional rhetoric to overcome reason. I may do the same with sexual orientation, polygamy, etc. Thus, instead of labeling people as gay, straight, transgender, or whatever, I’m going to follow Kristin Stewart’s advice and call everyone Sexually Fluid.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  205. I think I put this in the wrong thread. Heh.

    DRJ (1dff03)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1713 secs.