Tissue of lies: Why liberals and the media are in denial about the Planned Parenthood video

[TENBILLIONDOLLARS 216]

This week, pro-life activists published a three-hour video of Planned Parenthood's top doctor talking about the exchange of fetal organs that are extracted from women during abortion. "We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I'm not gonna crush that part," Dr. Deborah Nucatola tells her lunch guests, undercover activists who posed as members of a biologics startup. "I'm gonna basically crush below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact."

Ever since the video's release, the apologists for legal abortion at Planned Parenthood and in the media have been trying to crush this story with euphemisms. The mainstream media dutifully repeated and expanded on Planned Parenthood's talking points. The story went like this: A group of fanatics, one of whom is known to pray (ew!), perpetrated a hoax. They falsely portrayed Planned Parenthood's program of life-saving tissue donations as a sale (which would be illegal).

What has gone largely unmentioned is that the activists also released a complete unedited video. The media went to extreme lengths to avoid quoting this doctor on which parts of an unborn child she "crushes" to preserve valuable organs. The media also failed to mention that she discussed Planned Parenthood affiliates that want to "do a little better than break even" on these transactions. And the reports don't mention that a firm associated with the sale of these fetal livers, hearts, and heads advertised the fiscal benefits of preserving them, and had that very day taken its website offline.

Planned Parenthood's top talking point was that the video was "dishonestly edited." The truth is more the opposite. The video revealed the reality that Planned Parenthood and its defenders are working hard to spin. When Planned Parenthood gives one of its patients this consent form for organ donation, the language is dishonestly edited, referring to hearts and livers as "blood and/or tissue." When speaking candidly to presumed professionals in the biz, however, PP's top doctor is far more precise. After all, how do you think Planned Parenthood would react to legislation requiring it to explicitly ask patients if they want to donate the "heart, liver, or brain" of their aborted child to research?

I doubt addressing the conscience of most hard-core abortion supporters is likely to effect change. A moment's reflection on biology tells you that at the time of conception (not implantation), a unique human DNA code comes into being, bearing a likeness to its mother and father. A moment's reflection on evolution tells you that from that same moment, the mother's own body goes through physiological changes designed specifically to protect a healthy unborn child from harm. A glancing familiarity with human reproduction tells you that elective abortions are performed on unborn children with recognizably human features. Arms that can flail, fingers that can grasp, brains that can perceive pain. There is no one part of abortion that is more horrifying than abortion itself.

Someone who knowingly accepts the "crushing" and "snipping" of developing children as part of life in enlightened times, who resolves themselves to this practice as society's comprehensive and just response to a pregnant woman in crisis, is a person whose conscience is at the ready to accept or wave away any enormity around the practice. If you forced yourself to contemplate them at length, you might question the moral character of the whole enterprise. So you dismiss as local crime Kermit Gosnell's horror-clinic, where plunging the sink revealed a baby's arm, and you turn away from stories about hospitals that burn the remains of unborn children as part of a renewable heating energy source. Planned Parenthood's financial transactions in recently severed baby heads is just the humanitarian advance of "Science! FTW!" Could you object if they labeled a bag of heads with a meme of Neil deGrasse Tyson? What, are you such a troglodyte that you are "grossed out by science?" We're just plunging science deep into some necks — I mean "tissue" — here.

Some argue that the pro-life activists are just taking advantage of a natural squeamishness to medical procedures, that they "zero in on those gross medical details for maximum impact." As if the phrase "I'm gonna crush this" is something only a properly desensitized medical professional can understand. I don't believe the reaction of disgust here is purely physical.

...

The reason the pro-life activist video has to be dismissed as a "hoax" is the same reason the hailed pro-choice activist kept the film of her own abortion framed from the neck up. And it's the same reason Planned Parenthood wants media outlets to use their bloodless language about "tissues." Because the clinic, the media, and the culture want your approval of abortion as ordinary, lawful, and competently chosen. They can't let you see what it actually is: the violent destruction of a human life.

http://theweek.com/articles/566781/tissue-lies-why-liberals-media-are-denial-about-planned-parenthood-video

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

There is no medical procedure (and no, giving pills is not a procedure) that is pretty. Depending on where the uterus puts pressure in a caesarian section, a doctor may have to literally put the woman's internal organs onto the table next to her. Cancer surgery? They 'crush' veins and arteries above and below the tumour to try and avoid the tumour releasing more cells into the circulatory system while it is removed. Bone marrow harvesting (for bone marrow transplantation) has a giant needle and a drill and you can smell the bone cooking from the heat generated by the drill.

Abortions are going to happen, whether they're legal or illegal. A thing that is commonly glossed over by anti-choicers is that the abortion rate was almost exactly the same before Roe v. Wade as it was after--just more women died. More women got uterine infections that prevented future childbirth or even killed them. More adult women died. When a person campaigns against safe, legal abortion, they need to recognize that they are literally campaigning for the deaths of many women.

Even if somehow abortions became illegal and no one ever had another abortion, even assuming that every single person who has ever filled out a form towards adoption (a majority of people who take the initial steps stop halfway through the process, btw) was given a child and adopted that child, that wouldn't change that, within 18 years of the end of abortion, based on current pregnancy rates, miscarriage rates, the number of women who abort because they literally cannot afford a child under any circumstances and assuming that the foster care system does not simply collapse under the weight of so many additional children, there would be approximately 10 million additional children in the US's foster care system, nation-wide. Can social services handle that?

And when you say 'it is made of human DNA and human cells, so it is human!' let me ask you this. You're standing in a fertility clinic. They are moving a tray with a 1000 frozen embryos on it past you while you watch. A toddler is playing next to you. There is an explosion and the building is filling with fire and smoke. You can see the exit, but the toddler is stunned and panicking. The worker dropped the embryos and ran. The tray of embryos is too large to pick up it and the toddler. Which do you save?

[Rob L 3,811]

There is no medical procedure (and no, giving pills is not a procedure) that is pretty. Depending on where the uterus puts pressure in a caesarian section, a doctor may have to literally put the woman's internal organs onto the table next to her. Cancer surgery? They 'crush' veins and arteries above and below the tumour to try and avoid the tumour releasing more cells into the circulatory system while it is removed. Bone marrow harvesting (for bone marrow transplantation) has a giant needle and a drill and you can smell the bone cooking from the heat generated by the drill.

Abortions are going to happen, whether they're legal or illegal. A thing that is commonly glossed over by anti-choicers is that the abortion rate was almost exactly the same before Roe v. Wade as it was after--just more women died. More women got uterine infections that prevented future childbirth or even killed them. More adult women died. When a person campaigns against safe, legal abortion, they need to recognize that they are literally campaigning for the deaths of many women.

Even if somehow abortions became illegal and no one ever had another abortion, even assuming that every single person who has ever filled out a form towards adoption (a majority of people who take the initial steps stop halfway through the process, btw) was given a child and adopted that child, that wouldn't change that, within 18 years of the end of abortion, based on current pregnancy rates, miscarriage rates, the number of women who abort because they literally cannot afford a child under any circumstances and assuming that the foster care system does not simply collapse under the weight of so many additional children, there would be approximately 10 million additional children in the US's foster care system, nation-wide. Can social services handle that?

And when you say 'it is made of human DNA and human cells, so it is human!' let me ask you this. You're standing in a fertility clinic. They are moving a tray with a 1000 frozen embryos on it past you while you watch. A toddler is playing next to you. There is an explosion and the building is filling with fire and smoke. You can see the exit, but the toddler is stunned and panicking. The worker dropped the embryos and ran. The tray of embryos is too large to pick up it and the toddler. Which do you save?

I skimmed but didn't read the article above, too much slant and spin to sort out on Sunday morning.

I am firmly in the camp of a woman retaining sovereignty over her body and healthcare. I remain pro-choice but I continue to struggle with the ethics particularly with third trimester abortions as contraception.

Here is the dividing point for me: if a life is viable, and we take that life, and we use that that life to sustain our life or the life of another then we are prone to support the taking of a viable life because of the "good" that comes from the act. Society may consciously or unconsciously pressure the act of taking of this life ( including influencing the decision making of the potential mother).

As much as the Acorn style "journalism" makes me throw up in my mouth, I feel we need to have the ethical debate

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

So is it then better that no research be done with fetal tissues? What do we do with a woman who doesn't find out she's pregnant until late or who takes 'too long' to come up with the funds for an abortion?

Edited July 19, 2015 by Not a Tailor

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Unfortunately there is no ethical debate to be had with the anti-choice crowd. God said it. They believe it. That settles it.

Abortion is in and of itself a horrible, sad, and off putting medical procedure. Most medical procedures aren't pretty. At Planned Parenthood the woman does not have to sign the release of tissues. Abortion is legal. End of story for me.

[Rob L 3,811]

So is it then better that no research be done with fetal tissues? What do we do with a woman who doesn't find out she's pregnant until late or who takes 'too long' to come up with the funds for an abortion?

Research yes, therapy probably not. I was surprised to see this surface as an issue as I thought stem cell research had replaced fetal research. At any rate the part of the video that discusses the possibility of altering the way an abortion is performed to preserve more tissue could be ethically a problem.

What do we do with a woman who decides for what ever reason she wants a late term abortion? Support her legal right of course, my ethical concerns are not going to drive any action to stop her, they are just concerns.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Research yes, therapy probably not. I was surprised to see this surface as an issue as I thought stem cell research had replaced fetal research. At any rate the part of the video that discusses the possibility of altering the way an abortion is performed to preserve more tissue could be ethically a problem.

What do we do with a woman who decides for what ever reason she wants a late term abortion? Support her legal right of course, my ethical concerns are not going to drive any action to stop her, they are just concerns.

Ain't ya learned anything from Donald? Lol