Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

{ Obama decried the practice and went on to encourage the young people to do everything in their power to fight on the behalf of vulnerable humans. He urged consistency in how they view the sanctity of human life.

“Young people, you can lead the way and set a good example. But it requires some courage because people will push back at you and if you don’t have convictions and courage to be able stand up for what you think is right, then cruelty will perpetuate itself.” }

plot twist: he was talking to young adults in Africa about the ritual killing of and harvesting organs from albino people. He made an official statement saying he will not watch the Planned Parenthood videos and that PP has no greater champion than himself.

I think it’s about time we took to the forums to discuss this scandal.

With Planned Parenthood refusing to name the five states where its clinics participate in fetal tissue donation, legislators in nearly every state have opened investigations in order to figure out which state’s clinics were involved.

The latest video provides undeniable proof from the mouth of PP’s top leadership that they do in fact alter abortion procedure to increase the chance of harvesting useable organs, which is a very serious federal crime. This is also a further strike against StemExpress, one of the companies involved, as federal law says companies like StemExpress must get their tissue donations from clinics adhering to very specific collecting procedures.

So, what to discuss?
The public reaction to these allegations.

What is causing the pro-choice people to look at these blatant crimes and defend the actions of PP? Many of them refuse to even acknowledge the videos and write the whole thing off as a conservative smear campaign, but as more videos are released its become very apparent that laws are being broken here, yet still the liberal media publishes report after report about the “GOP resurrecting the war on women”.

Mod Edit: changed the title and body by request of the OP. The discussion should take place here, the other thread will remain locked. Have a good day.

TYVM Loli

There is a PP nearby where I live in San Jose, CA. I was driving home last week and noticed people outside with signs. Curious, I pulled over and spent the next hour speaking with the people who were there protesting.

I was greeted by a gentleman wearing a large icon of a Roman Catholic saint. I asked him what their message was, and why they were protesting.

His response, "Because there is infanticide taking place in there. The are pulling out babies and chopping them up. I heard a woman the other day say "we whacked 10 this morning".

When I asked what action they would like- "We want this place shutdown and the people inside to be in handcuffs. They need to be in prison for life."

The reason he gave for women going in there – "They are coming in here because they want the new car, the expensive things, the new house, they want to party and they want to live in luxury instead of taking responsibility for their actions. They want free sex."

What should the women should do – "They should raise it. God will help them. They have welfare. You don't see babies starving."

He went on to say that PP was a plot by the Jewish population to kill gentiles in America and worldwide. I have most of this recorded, I didn't catch the very beginning of our meeting, but much of what he said initially was repeated on camera.

This is the face of the argument against PP to a random citizen. How is one to take those accusations into a reasonable conversation?

Let me guess, ^ that's not a derail, huh mods?

Anecdotal Evidence, faulty logic

Your post has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

It has to do with what you consider a "person" some people are perfectly fine with the donation of fetal tissue and abortion while others insist that once a human is conceived its automatically a person. As for the idiots outside the abortion clinic well their idiots.

{ some people are perfectly fine with the donation of fetal tissue and abortion }

That's not the question.

PP is breaking federal law and attempting to cover it up, and pro-choice advocates who refuse to watch the videos or listen to what's being said at all insist PP is innocent and nothing they're doing is actually breaking the law, despite PP leadership being quoted in unedited videos wanting Lamborghinis in return, assuring the tissue buyers that they could change the abortion procedure to harvest more in-tact organs and bodies.

The question is, why are all of these people so willing to jump to the defense of PP?
What has PP done to establish such blind trust with the general public?

It's political alignment at work more then anything else. Some people adhere to it as if this were a D&D campaign and there were literal gods of Political Left and Political Right. PP has a firm ally in the left and a firm enemy with the right. Anyone who wants to be politically left, or just anti-right, in the united states, defends PP out of a sense of duty and moral obligation, a moral obligation to oppose the conservatives of america.

Really, it is that dumb. I would like to know how exactly these methods of abortion are being changed, and how this organ harvesting is actually being used. Are these organs going to saving lives or simply for stem-cell harvesting? And is there an increased danger to the mother through these alternative means of abortion?

Also, no matter what, comparing an abortion to people taking fully developed human beings, kidnapping them, and carving them open, is a low move. It's bad form of discussion, and a false equivocation.

The type of stuff you'd expect from Buzzfeed more then a poltical discussion.

You're right, inducing labor, delivering a living 25+ week baby, leaving it alone to die of neglect, then cutting it open and harvesting its organs is not a comparison to ritualistic human killing, it's exactly the same thing.

I would assume that clears up a couple of your other questions as well.

PP provides numerous services that are helpful to women. If you are basing you opinions on edited video clips you are proving your ignorance to logic. They do more than abortions at PP, they provide services that actually decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, thus leading to fewer abortions. Truly stopping abortion is accomplished by reducing unwanted pregnancy.

You are asking for an explanation of a position when you have no substance ot your argument other than edited video clips. You have absolutely nothing to support your claims.
You don't want conversation, your posts prove you are incapable of that. You have nothing to substantiate your claims. Just a hybeast looking for an argument.

It's sad to see you call out the mods (which shows you just want attention/fight), especially since it was my first postt. It's like watching your little sibling cry to mommy and daddy. If you're an adult handle your business.

The unedited videos are posted on this site, you know that right? Oh, you don't, you're another fanatic defender of the Savior Planned Parenthood without having watched a single video.

Guess how many PP in this country are equipped with mammogram machines?

Zero, they give referrals to low cost clinics that actually do them.

PP provides 30% of the abortions in this country, they do as many abortions as they do pap smears (~400k). That's why they consider abortion a "service", which is what they call providing birth control and STD tests. When you compare 400k abortions to the millions of STD tests and birth control pills they give out, of course the number looks small.

PP's primary purpose is to give condoms and birth control to minors who are too scared to talk to their parents but not too scared to have sex. They can even check for STDs or get rid of that accident, all without your parents knowing a thing about your invasive surgery "service".

About as much as comparing the united states food producers to the concentration camps. IE, not really much outside of hyperbole vs actually-an-atrocity.

That's a matter of opinion, as I find delivering babies to leave them to die to harvest their organs an undoubted atrocity. You apparently do not.

First of it's planned parenthood not some cancer prevention society, which is what mammograms are for preventing cancer.

Secondly without abortion women would have to deal with unwanted pregnancy (were half of all pregnancies are unwanted) which can ruin their education or careers forcing them onto welfare.
Abortions when done properly are one of the safest medical procedures and it's certainly better to get rid of an unthinking mass of cells then to make women suffer for no reason. Calling abortion "invasive surgery" is insulting to the many people that get one so they don't have to deal with the consequences of unwanted pregnancy.

Your point about making parents know about their teenagers abortion can lead to interference on their part which can cause them to be pressured into not getting one/ punished for getting one. Privacy is also a big issue with many teenagers simply not wanting to tell their parents about it.

Mammograms are the #1 women's health service in the world, we're supposed to have them done every six months out of precaution no matter who you are or how healthy you are. My own mother was able to catch her breast cancer early enough to eradicate it completely thanks to her semi-annual mammograms. If PP cared about providing low cost women's health services, why would they not facilitate the #1 service women require? Especially the one most poor/minority women don't have access to otherwise?

Nobody is discussing banning abortions completely, we have a Supreme Court decision that prevents such a thing. An abortion is medically considered an invasive surgery, it means the procedure is taking place inside your body. Did you really just get offended over medical terminology? Planned Parenthood is the one pulling wool over the public's eyes by calling it a mere service in comparison to taking birth control or having an STD test.

Minors can't even consent to the surgery PP is giving! Another reason why they fight so intensely to keep it classified a "service". It is a medical surgery with medical risks, what happens to the minor, whose parents don't even know where they are, who's had a problem during their abortion and needs more urgent medical attention (and we can only hope the doctor has admitting rights to the nearest hospital in case of emergency, a standard that has been shot down by Democrats in Congress every time its been brought up).

What happens to the minor who tells their friends about their abortion and it goes around school and now she's being bullied as the slut who needed an abortion so she goes home and hangs herself in the closet, and her parents didn't even know she had a boyfriend let alone an abortion! Oh well, she kept her privacy intact, and that's what really matters here!

Now, since the mods don't care, I ask once again that you remain on topic and answer my question: why do you so ardently defend Planned Parenthood despite mounting evidence that they are actually breaking federal law, endangering women, and profiting off fetal tissue?

Former Blood and Tissue Procurement Technician for StemExpress turns whistleblower, says PP clinics regularly harvest highly desired fetal organs without consent and talks about her role pressuring women in the waiting room to sign donation forms.

{ As a procurement tech, O’Donnell’s job was to identify pregnant patients matching the specifications of StemExpress customers and to harvest the fetal body parts from their abortions.

“It’s not an option, it’s a demand,” StemExpress supervisors instructed O’Donnell about approaching pregnant women at Planned Parenthood for fetal tissue “donations.” “If there was a higher gestation, and the technicians needed it, there were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.” }

plz someone quickly, think of some excuse for this round of federal lawbreaking, the war on women, anything!?!

I don't know anything about the law and I'm not American either, but what laws are they breaking because it doesn't sound that villainous to me?

As long as they are donations, I don't see what's so bad looking past the questionable abortion procedures. I mean if some promiscuous person couldn't wait to expunge her unborn child before birth then its kinda silly to ask something like "did you want to cremate?" The mothers probably don't care if the tissues are going towards transplants or research or whatever.

It's a federal law that there has to be informed consent. The paragraph you just quoted says in bold that "donations" were being taken without consent at all. The laws exist to protect women from being taken advantage of and possibly injured in order to harvest better tissue, which is exactly what PP has admitted to doing in the vids.

Yes I read that part, but I was talking about donation from abortion clinic to wherever its going not from mother to abortion clinic. If the clinic is profiting from selling organs without the mother's knowledge that doesn't sound very ethical. But I don't see a problem with donating without the mother's consent.

I'm surprised that its the law that the mother needs to give consent because I thought it was implied that they were going to not let the material go to waste. The mother got her secret and private abortion so what if she says no? Does she take it home or will there be a funeral or something?

Saying that consent is required for the safety of the woman sounds reasonable, but debatable. I mean that's like saying without that law women will get hurt. That's not true because there are negligence laws. Part of being a professional means knowing that people will rely on your skills and your expertise so you can't say the mother will get hurt if that law didn't exist.. So I don't really see the need for that kind of law.

Because it is apparently not all that apparent for you libs, I will remind you that a fetus is not just a lump of trash, it's your genetic material. While a woman may be okay with an abortion, that does not mean she's okay with her own genetic material being cultured and grown and experimented on.

Still don't see the need for consent?

That's so cute. I have made e.coli cells express genes that are only found on viral molecules as part of my lab classes and I've studied how the fetus expresses genes for higher affinity subunits in hemoglobin so that it can "steal" oxygen from the mother's hemoglobin and I've learned how genetic imprinting affects things like Prader-Willi syndrome, but please remind me how genetics works.

I swear on my university loans that I was going to mention genetic privacy, but refrained because you never hinted at that and I didn't want to go off on a tangent to my reply.

But more importantly, you said that law was so women aren't "taken advantage of" and "for their safety", but you completely ignored my response. Did you agree with it or what?

Your lab classes are completely irrelevant to this conversation and the fact that you neglected to consider genetic privacy in your first reply.

I already answered your other concerns:

{ The laws exist to protect women from being taken advantage of and possibly injured in order to harvest better tissue, which is exactly what PP has admitted to doing in the vids. }

PP has admitted to changing abortion procedure, like using vacuum aspiration on fetuses that are too large instead of scraping the uterus, in order to harvest more complete specimen. Beside being against federal law, issues are much more likely to arise during a procedure when the purpose is to remove the fetus as carefully as possible in order to profit off of it instead of ensuring the woman is comfortable and healthy. That's what "being taken advantage of" means.

My lab classes are relevant when you post in a condescending manner "I will remind you" why do you think you need to remind me of anything when you said nothing about genetic privacy in the first place? I am not going to make any arguments that support your side of course so I didn't say anything either.

{PP has admitted to changing abortion procedure, like using vacuum aspiration on fetuses that are too large instead of scraping the uterus, in order to harvest more complete specimen. Beside being against federal law, issues are much more likely to arise during a procedure when the purpose is to remove the fetus as carefully as possible in order to profit off of it instead of ensuring the woman is comfortable and healthy. That’s what “being taken advantage of” means.}

They are professionals and will do whatever they feel the need to do. If they do it wrong, then they are negligent, it still has nothing to do with consent. You think a surgeon about to do an emergency open heart surgery is going to ask for your consent on whether to use scalpel x or tool y? Get outta here. Breaching a duty of care is what being negligent means. This law is unnecessary with regards to the safety of the mom in the procedure.

Oh and lets reevaluate who gets the better treatment if the clinic is indeed profiting off the fetus. The mom that says do this to me and you can money off of it, or the mom that says do this to me, but you can't make money off of this. If I was the disgruntled worker in case B I would probably be less inclined to care about the well being of a selfish promiscuous mother.

Federal law:

No alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue.

Federal HHS regulation:

The timing and method of abortion should not be influenced by the potential uses of fetal tissue for transplantation or medical research.

If you were a disgruntled abortion clinic nurse, you would be in jail.

{ I am not going to make any arguments that support your side of course so I didn’t say anything either. }

So…. you identified a very good reason why consent is necessary, then decided to ignore it because acknowledging it would have meant you were wrong?

I never said I would alter the procedure to purposely harm thanks for making assumptions on my part. I only made that point because you seem to believe that not giving consent puts the mother on a golden pedestal that makes an abortion like getting a spa treatment when the operation can be unpleasant either way. Also who do you think decides how and when procedures are performed? Good luck being a normal person trying to argue against a trained professional that went to medical school if the "timing" was incorrect or the procedure was incorrectly altered.

But hey let's ignore my actual argument that consent or no consent a duty of care is owed which strips your argument that consent is required for the safety of the mother. Its easier to pick on a specific example than to defend your argument by responding to mine isn't it?

{
I am not going to make any arguments that support your side of course so I didn’t say anything either. }

So…. you identified a very good reason why consent is necessary, then decided to ignore it because acknowledging it would have meant you were wrong?
}

>Says that having a discussion isn't about being right or wrong only to discuss ideas
>Accuses me of omission because I would be wrong

Try harder please. If you want to continue being serious I said I wasn't going to make any arguments for you. I never said that I agree with them or that it would mean I'm wrong. I'd gladly explain why ignorance of how genetic material is used and what it means is a stupid reason to not donate tissues to research, but I'm not letting you get away with consent because "it would harm the mother" bit just yet.

Planned Parenthood has admitted to altering the abortion procedure to harvest more intact tissue, including improper abortion technique, postponing abortions to let the organs the labs requested develop further, and taking "donations" without consent. We're not talking about your personal opinion of abortion, this thread is about the PP videos. Did you miss the entire OP?

You're just repeating yourself and this time its not even about what we were arguing about. Allow me to summarize.

harvest highly desired fetal organs without consent

Why is it so bad to harvest organs without consent that it needs to be a federal law?

The laws exist to protect women from being taken advantage of and possibly injured in order to harvest better tissue

But Lisa, the people that perform these operations are professionals and as professionals there exist negligence laws that say a professional owes a duty of care to the public. This means that even if the clinic has ulterior motives for performing an abortion, they must still hold the safety of the mother in the highest regard making the law for consent unnecessary as its redundant.

Planned Parenthood has admitted to altering the abortion procedure to harvest more intact tissue, including improper abortion technique, postponing abortions to let the organs the labs requested develop further, and taking “donations” without consent. We’re not talking about your personal opinion of abortion, this thread is about the PP videos. Did you miss the entire OP?

….

I can't demonstrate your inability to rebut any simpler than that. I am finished posting in this thread have a good day.

I was kindly trying to lead you back on topic, and keep myself on topic, as the mods here have suspended me for less.

If you want to argue about the laws surrounding abortion in general, I already have a thread for that too.

Since a whole single sentence of your post managed to be on topic, I'll respond to that:

{ This means that even if the clinic has ulterior motives for performing an abortion, they must still hold the safety of the mother in the highest regard making the law for consent unnecessary as its redundant. }

Yet, as we can see from the PP videos, the clinic is actively not holding the safety of the mother in the highest regard, making the law for consent extremely necessary in order to persecute those breaking it.

It's also not redundant to ask for consent to have your own genetic material sold to an anonymous lab where they'll be experimenting and doing god knows what else to it. That's not covered under negligence laws, that would be covered under consent laws.

Who the fuck is changing all the titles of my threads?

New PP video: most late gestational "fetus" yet gets his face split open right down the middle in order to harvest his brain.

{ The medical technician said the child was so intact that they could “procure a lot from it. We’re going to procure a brain.” The tech told O’Donnell they would need to “go through the face.” The medical tech took scissors and cut through the child’s lower jaw up through the mouth. O’Donnell was directed to cut the rest of the way through “the middle of the face.”

“I can’t even describe what that feels like,” said O’Donnell. O’Donnell had to take the boy’s remains and put him in a bio-hazard container and “then I realized I was the only person ever to hold that baby.” }

Latest unedited PP video shows StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer promising "consistent growth" in the fetal organ selling industry, discussing "intact cases" (whole "late term abortions" aka baby bodies) which is indicative of the highly controversial partial-birth abortion procedure, and laughing about how their lab techs are always "having meltdowns" when they open boxes of fully intact "specimen".

Conversation excerpt:

The calvaria is the skull, neural tissue obviously being the brain.
They're talking about severed baby heads.

It's okay to admit you're disgusted.

Yahoo news article on Planned Parenthood

Planned parenthood says reimbursement is legal, the videos were heavily edited to alter the context of the conversations (like altering of the abortion procedures in order to better harvest tissue), and they are suing the Center for Medical Progress for misrepresentation.

Know why no big MSM outlets are reporting on that?

{ But the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no “widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.”

Daleiden, who founded and leads CMP, told POLITICO that the footage missing from the tapes is “bathroom breaks” and conversations between the group’s members. He denied cutting anything substantial or any leading questions. }

Not to mention the "independent" report was commissioned by Planned Parenthood themselves and out of the 12 hours they reviewed, only 30 minutes overall of footage was deemed cut, which is a small enough window of time to account for bathroom breaks, walking from parking lots into meeting areas and waiting to be seated, etc.

A desperate last grasp at straws by an organization that knows they're fucked.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/28/9217323/planned-parenthood-tapes-edited

Do literally none of you read threads before you post in them?

Do you read articles before you reply?

They were said to be unedited -- they aren't. So now they have established themselves as untrustworthy.

Did you?
That Vox article has the same exact quote I posted in my response to Windy.

{ But the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no “widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.” }

30m out of 12h of footage that was cut out 2m at a time over the whole taping session is obviously bathroom breaks/etc, and the Center has said they'd make those full tapes available to any court that takes on the case Planned Parenthood is trying its best to not let begin. Editing out bathroom breaks doesn't make someone untrustworthy, nobody is obligated to let the general public watch them piss via body cam.

Editing out bathroom breaks doesn’t make someone untrustworthy, nobody is obligated to let the general public watch them piss via body cam.

Indeed it wouldn't, if they were to make that fact abundantly clear in the first place. But they didn't.

Regardless, how would this explain the fake subtitles?

Perhaps they thought, since police investigators regularly edit out the personal conversations and breaks in detective footage that gets released to the media (because again, only the courts get to see the raw footage), that they had no need to blatantly state "oh btw as we weren't making a porno we cut out the pissing dick scenes".

Where's the claim for "fake subtitles"? The firm hired by Planned Parenthood and paid by Planned Parenthood could still only say that the phrases "it's a baby" and "another boy" were too unclear in the original videos to be 100% conclusive that those lab workers really did say what they said. Even if that's true, it only clears up two of many morally disparaging comments made by PP workers but does not do anything to deny or confirm the legal accusations against them, which are what really matter.

Why are you assuming that editing requires removal of a large amount of footage? Editing can be as simple as removing the smallest nuance or context that can turn an innocent statement villainous.
I've seen evidence of Fox news (which is supposedly unbiased) blatantly edit photos, so why should an organization with an actual agenda not be scrutinized for editing?

Also, if anyone can sit and watch 12 hours of footage they can surely stay for another 30 minutes. People are demanding the unedited footage and the CMP say its only available if it goes to court? That sounds anything but trustworthy (not to mention recording without permission doesn't exactly help their case).

{ People are demanding the unedited footage and the CMP say its only available if it goes to court? }

The public has the unedited footage minus bathroom breaks/private conversations unrelated to the sting, which is all the public is obligated to have. Only the court is obligated to view footage that must be raw to be submitted as evidence in court. All this firm concluded was that the publicly released videos are not able to be submitted as evidence in court, which was never the intention.

All the investigating into the center that released the videos, but still nobody has investigated Planned Parenthood itself. If these allegations are true, they amount to serious federal crimes that even the most ardent of PP supporters could not defend, so why have the liberal members of government stalled every legitimate government investigation into the allegations?

They wont be able to stall it forever and the full truth will come out, much to PP's dismay.

Perhaps they thought, since police investigators regularly edit out the personal conversations and breaks in detective footage that gets released to the media (because again, only the courts get to see the raw footage), that they had no need to blatantly state “oh btw as we weren’t making a porno we cut out the pissing dick scenes”.

Indeed, this third-party with its own self-interests is exactly the same as police releasing evidence to the media. Maybe you're right -- releasing the footage with the implication that it is full and unedited, only to be accused of being edited later and backtracking saying "we only edited these very unimportant parts that you don't need to see" is probably a better game plan.

Where’s the claim for “fake subtitles”?

"Simpson said his team of experts found that the subtitles in the videos do not correspond to the actual dialogue, and that the CMP may have simply invented parts of the conversation when the recordings were too low-quality to determine what was really being said. In one case, the video indicates that a technician said, 'It's a baby.' But those words cannot actually be heard in the video -- the segment consists of incomprehensible background chatter."

{ In one case, the video indicates that a technician said, ’It’s a baby.’ But those words cannot actually be heard in the video -- the segment consists of incomprehensible background chatter.” }

jfc are you reading my posts at all? Here I'll break it down by sentence.

{ The firm hired by Planned Parenthood and paid by Planned Parenthood could still only say that the phrases “it’s a baby” and “another boy” were too unclear in the original videos to be 100% conclusive that those lab workers really did say what they said. }

The firm claims the conversation is too muffled by background chatter to say the techs said what it was claimed they said, but:

{ Even if that’s true, it only clears up two of many morally disparaging comments made by PP workers but does not do anything to deny or confirm the legal accusations against them, which are what really matter. }

I'll break it down for you.

The firm hired by Planned Parenthood and paid by Planned Parenthood could still only say that the phrases “it’s a baby” and “another boy” were too unclear in the original videos to be 100% conclusive

It wasn't too muffled to hear them say that -- it was fabricated, and they didn't say it.

Even if that’s true, it only clears up two of many morally disparaging comments made by PP workers but does not do anything to deny or confirm the legal accusations against them, which are what really matter.

The fake subtitles create disbelief and leaves everything else in the video suspect. Maybe you don't understand what the term "beyond reasonable doubt" means?

And reading from a report that isn't HuffPo:

{ In one from Colorado, the transcription says a staffer says "It's a baby." Professional transcriptionists couldn't make any intelligible statement out of that segment, which is full of background chatter. }

They couldn't distinguish an intelligible statement, not "there was no one talking they totes made it up".

{ The fake subtitles create disbelief and leaves everything else in the video suspect. }

The firm that decided they can't distinguish the statement also decided:

{ But the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no “widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.” }

So, are you believing what the firm decided, or not?

It is fabrication…Subtitles are meant to replace audio not to be a promise of a truthful retelling. Whether they actually said that or not, an average person nor can experts hear the sentence from the background noise. This is why we want unedited footage of the conversations not what they do in the washrooms. It can be made very obvious through honest editing perhaps by the proper authorities when somebody is getting up to go to the washroom and when they sit back. "Personal privacy" is not going to cut it as an excuse for why they aren't providing unedited footage.

An excuse to who? You're acting like the Court of Public Opinion is a real thing

The videos mean nothing to legal investigators and legal courts, no matter what is said or admitted to. The videos only serve as a basis to open an investigation so officers of the law can conclude whether or not any crimes are actually being committed. That step hasn't even been started thanks to liberal politician stalling, but the Obama Administration did manage to launch a probe… into the Center that released the videos.

{ Reps. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) asked U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and California Attorney General Kamala Harris on Tuesday to review whether the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress broke state and federal laws when it created a fake human tissue procurement company in order to gain access to and secretly film Planned Parenthood staffers. }

Why no probe into the actions of Planned Parenthood and StemExpress?
Because that might reveal actual illegal actions?
And then they might actually be forced to do something about it?

If you're paying attention, it doesn't get any more obvious than this.

{An excuse to who? You’re acting like the Court of Public Opinion is a real thing}

I'm acting like your defense for privacy reason is crap. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not playing any holier than thou game here. Its just your argument versus mine.

{The videos only serve as a basis to open an investigation…}

No, what this video serves is as an attack by an anti-abortion group to misrepresent and through fear mongering shut down this particular abortion clinic.

{Why no probe into the actions of Planned Parenthood and StemExpress? }

I don't know. Does your government usually focus all of its attention to the cries of moral activists with only some edited videos as evidence?

Besides privacy, it's federally against the law to even be recording in public bathrooms, that's why only the court is obligated to view the raw footage as opposed to the general public. How many god damn times do I have to beat you over the head with one simple fact before you can comprehend it?

{ what this video serves is as an attack by an anti-abortion group to misrepresent and through fear mongering shut down this particular abortion clinic. }

So you are absolutely unconcerned about all of the evidence contained in the videos, which was not disputed by the firm Planned Parenthood hired, which imply heavily that federal law is being broken? We should ignore all that because obviously this is just the right-wing war on women? Pathetic. These people could blatantly start murdering babies (though there's already reason to believe they do) and you'd still be riding that dick.

{ Does your government usually focus all of its attention to the cries of moral activists with only some edited videos as evidence? }

That's literally what law enforcement is for. If I claimed that you robbed something from me, they would be obligated to investigate and see whether there was reason to believe you actually robbed me. CMP is claiming PP and StemExpress were knowingly breaking federal law, the authorities are now obligated to investigate whether or not there's reason to believe they're actually breaking the law. It's not fucking rocket science and I'm getting real sick of you libs pretending it is. If they are breaking federal law, action needs to be taken just as if any other person or entity were breaking federal law.

{Besides privacy, it’s federally against the law to even be recording in public bathrooms, that’s why only the court is obligated to view the raw footage as opposed to the general public. How many god damn times do I have to beat you over the head with one simple fact before you can comprehend it?}

I'd never hit you, I wouldn't want to knock out what little sense you have remaining. We all understand your concern with recording men in the the washroom give it a rest already no one else cares. Its one thing to stop recording when someone gets up to leave to the washroom and another thing to start videos mid conversation. Watch the video yourself at 6:31-6:33. The conversation was at the most important point and it just shifts to neural tissue? What were the following remarks? Why was that left out? Context makes the difference. What happened between 6:31 and 6:33? If the person with the video recorder had to attend personal business why didn't the clip end with the person getting up to go to the bathroom and start with him/her sitting down?
Please.

{That’s literally what law enforcement is for. If I claimed that you robbed something from me, they would be obligated to investigate and see whether there was reason to believe you actually robbed me.}

Sure, and if you wore a "I hate windy" shirt and have raised suspicion as being unreliable that's probably where it will end; the obligation.

{These people could blatantly start murdering babies (though there’s already reason to believe they do) and you’d still be riding that dick.}

I didn't want to say this in the serious debate forum, but u mad.

{If they are breaking federal law, action needs to be taken just as if any other person or entity were breaking federal law.}

Just for fun here's another video of her where she openly says that both sides should profit financially, but why wasn't there a big backlash back in 2014? Because this was a professional setting and there weren't disturbing pictures of fetuses or some sort of a "hidden camera scandal" ring to it? Watch at 27:50

Lisalombs stopped replying I must have won the discussion.

This isn't a useless post though. I'm interested in what people think of the second video in my last post. The first video at around 6:24 has Cate saying that she feels the clinics are profiting from their services and then the clip was repeated and the contrast changed as if they uncovered some great conspiracy even though in the second video she says the same thing a year ago around 27:50, but there was no concern raised back then. It certainly wasn't covered in the media on the same scale that it is now. Maybe the google employees that hosted the event had no clue what she was saying, and maybe not the large audience or even the internet audience, but not even the instigator asking "how much is a dead body worth?" ? Did he only have government level knowledge of the law and not superior lisalombs knowledge of the law?

Is this type of appeal to emotion appropriate when you're trying to convince the public of your view point? is it fair to believe this biased view and then to make adamant conclusions without waiting for the opposition to reply or unbiased footage?

{The latest video provides undeniable proof from the mouth of PP’s top leadership that they do in fact alter abortion procedure to increase the chance of harvesting useable organs, which is a very serious federal crime. This is also a further strike against StemExpress, one of the companies involved, as federal law says companies like StemExpress must get their tissue donations from clinics adhering to very specific collecting procedures}