BREAKING: Court Rules Against StemExpress On Undercover Planned Parenthood Videos

a reply to: xuenchen

Recovery not probable.

You're a fool. Do you have any idea who Stemexpress customers are? Hint: They're not squeemish abort using aborted tissues and organs!



Stemexpress is going to be just fine!

a reply to: windword



PP is the target.

SE is (secretly?) funding the legal battle for both themselves and PP.

There is a corporate takeover in progress.

Big money.

a reply to: xuenchen

Even if PP is defunded by the federal government, (which won't happen) that won't stop their abortion services, because they aren't funded by the federal government. In fact, defunding PP will cause more unintended pregnancies and their auxiliary abortion services will soar. Tissue galore!

It certainly won't stop companies like Stemexpress from procuring fetal tissues.

a reply to: windword

I'm not referring to defunding.

Somebody wants the brand and the money that comes with it.

Even the under the table money is in play.

a reply to: xuenchen

Are you suggesting a corporate takeover? Whatever. As long as PP doors remain open and services are offered, it matters not to me who runs it.

It matters not and has nothing to do with Stemexpress' lawsuit against CMP.

a reply to: windword

What are PP's main services compared to any other companies?

a reply to: xuenchen

Do your own research!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

Do your own research!

What's your bottom line fear?

Somethings got your goat.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

Are you suggesting a corporate takeover?

Yes.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
I would go with this idea. By default...any person's body should be left alone after death. However, any person can choose to allow their body to be used for any research, medical testing, organ donation, etc. easily. Any person that dies but has a family member that believes that person wanted to donate their body for such purposes...can speak on their behalf. But...a human that was never known by anyone and never had the opportunity to choose if they wanted their body used should fall to the default of not being used.

I'm not religious and I'm pro-choice...but I don't like the idea of anyone besides myself and my loved ones deciding that my body can be used for their, or anyone else's benefit without my permission. The "default" in my opinion should not be that others can simply take a body for their own use. It should be an opt-in...not an opt-out. We should NEVER have to file paperwork, or go to any effort to expect the natural progression. Anyone who believes otherwise...has a different agenda. Good or bad...not your choice what happens to my body.

It currently is opt in.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: ketsuko
Would you say the same for a dead relative? Or some random dead person? If we find a dead homeless person, should we just sell their body because no one cares what happens to it?

Yes, and if decomposition isn't too bad, we frequently do.

If we're going to perform abortions what would you prefer? An abortion or an abortion that contributes to medical research that saves future lives?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Excellent word for this.

It's amazing to me that we can have a discussion about, say, a cop shooting an aggressive dog, and it being determined that the officer followed all policies and protocols and broke no laws... yet still have a major uproar over it. We can have a situation in which a woman legally shoots a giraffe in Africa, breaking no laws whatsoever, and have a major uproar over it. We can have a president following the laws which allow enhanced interrogation techniques to be performed, and have a major uproar over it. We can have corporation using perfectly legal loopholes to reduce their federal tax burden, and have a major uproar over it... but when we have a major uproar over the ghoulishness of standard PP abortion procedures relating to the bodies of those babies, the same crowd immediately plays the "it's all legal" card to dismiss the issue.

The fetus is dead either way. In all of your examples you're talking about killing something, whether or not we collect tissue doesn't change the fact that the person is already getting an abortion.

Edit: It's not performing abortions to collect human tissue, it's collecting human tissue from abortions that are already going to happen. There is a world of difference between the two.

Let me gettgive you another perspective, it mirrors this situation quite remarkably.

When a farmer has to shoot a Wolf who is killing his livestock, he is not allowed to take possession of the carcass after the fact. He has to turn it into the government. Now, I don't know the exact reasons behind this, but it seems like they probably do this so as not to create a black market for Wolf pelts that will erase the progress we have made.

You wish to refuse the same courtesey to human fetuses. How bad is it that you would care more about the lives of destructive nuissance animals (The lone wolf that usually does this because he has no pack) than what a huge proportion of the country believes is a real human. I seriously hope I am never in a situation near you where you had the choice of saving me versus a wild feral wolf.


The point I'm trying to make here is that you would allow and trust evil money hhungry corporations to follow the law exactly (doctor cannot know if the fetus is to be used for research or which part may be used after the baby's death. That companies cannot extract a profit from the organs of the fetuses, allowing only for reimbursement of cost, etc.), but you don't trust that people will not try to create an illicit market because the occasional wolf pelt of dangerous and destructive animal MAY come on the market If said farmer decides he wants to sell it.

Does this make a little more sense to you now? It really irks me that Liberals bounce back and forth on who they trust. Today they trust that StemExpress (one of those evil things known as Corporations) will not coax or do dirty dealings with SOME of the psychos at PP (note I said some, not all people who work at PP are evil witches that wanna kill babies, their service is an important one), but then tommorow when Wal Mart wants to open up a Wal Mart in a low income neighborhood, Libs fly off the hinges and protest and picket that Wal Mart just wants to steal local tax subsidies, even if they are providing competetivly priced food and clothing and a couple hundred jobs in the process. I guess not all Corporations are created equal in the eyes of Liberals, but that would mean they have an agenda, but they're liberals, they don't have an agenda.........

a reply to: chuck258

The difference between the wolf and the fetus, is that the wolf doesn't advance medical knowledge. I understand having to turn the carcass in so that we don't create a black market, but with a fetus we also have laws that human tissue can't be sold at a profit to prevent the same situation.

As far as trusting corporations goes, StemExpress has done nothing to imply they can't be trusted, on the other hand Walmart has put many local businesses out of business, has a policy of selling products at a loss to drive out competition, and is known for paying very low wages while using government subsidies to make it up. StemExpress contributes to society rather than detracts unless you can prove otherwise.

The debate over it being a human isn't even relevant because the abortion is going to happen regardless of that debate. Would you rather an abortion happen and no good comes from it, or an abortion where some good comes from it? I feel the same way about those wolf carcasses, killing the wolf and then incinerating the remains is a waste of a life even though killing it may have been necessary.

And I'm not sure what Liberal or Conservative has to do with any of this.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Abortion is legal, and it's a woman's right to decide when and if she wants a family. A woman's choice is sacred. No one can force her to carry an unwanted pregnancy and no one can force her to abort.

Now, I don't agree with the law you've cited, that was passed by the pro-life Bush administration, but abortion isn't murder. However, the G.W. Bush admin and their pro-life cronies want you to know that if your force a woman to have an abortion, you'll be charged with murder. It's not a bi-polar law, it protects a woman's choice.

It does not protect ANYTHING.

But that is funny that you would put it that way.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

These people honestly believe that a mother's right is to decide whether or not you live or die.

And that such a person who clearly makes decisions based on the kind of lifestyle, and intel she has gathered should be helped to do it, at ALL COSTS.

In no way, EVER, should she have to change or compromise a dam thing about what got her to that decision, because it "must have all been some mistake".

It really seems to miss the entire point, that people should THINK , and BEFORE they act....this makes it far too easy to rush around with no consequences for actions.

And they believe that it would be WORSE if they could not "choose".

They actually cannot and refuse to recognize just how odd and actually sick the entire idea is, I wish they would have to watch the procedure as it is happening, since they are so convinced its something we "desperately need" for Woman's Rights, more than ANY OTHER THING IN THE WORLD.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

the more mistakes you make, the more you're encouraged to blame anyone but yourself.

This is so true. How have we come to this point in evolution where we reject personal responsibility?

a reply to: WalkInSilence


Like it or not, there are times when abortion is the appropriate decision....

abcnews.go.com...

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Abortion is legal, and it's a woman's right to decide when and if she wants a family. A woman's choice is sacred. No one can force her to carry an unwanted pregnancy and no one can force her to abort.

Now, I don't agree with the law you've cited, that was passed by the pro-life Bush administration, but abortion isn't murder. However, the G.W. Bush admin and their pro-life cronies want you to know that if your force a woman to have an abortion, you'll be charged with murder. It's not a bi-polar law, it protects a woman's choice.

It does not protect ANYTHING.

But that is funny that you would put it that way.

The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."
en.wikipedia.org...

News ...

StemExpress Cuts Ties With Planned Parenthood After Video

StemExpress, a biomedical company that has admitted to working with Planned Parenthood in California in the retrieval of body parts and organs of aborted babies, has said it will cut its ties with the nation’s largest abortion provider.

a reply to: xuenchen

StemExpress, a biomedical company that has admitted to working with Planned Parenthood in California in the retrieval of body parts and organs of aborted babies, has said it will cut its ties with the nation’s largest abortion provider.

Hmmm. Interesting. So, according to Politico, Stemexpress sent a press release to Politico, and only Politico, apparently, since no one else has the press release, except Politico. But Stemexpress, they didn't even put their announcement on their own website on their own NEWS Page?

stemexpress.com...

Promoting Lies!

a reply to: windword

Self proclamation by StemX