Subscribe
Notify of
guest
102 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago

Can someone explain to me why this is so bad? Don’t get me wrong, I’m still very much against abortion. But the amount of money they’re talking about here is peanuts. $100 per ‘specimen’? That is not trying to make a profit, that is simply recouping the costs associated with any type of tissue donation. There a lots of costs to preserve the tissue, transport it safely, etc. Again, I’m very much against the heinous act of abortion, but the attempt to make it look like PP is making a lot of money from this is pretty feeble and unconvincing.… Read more »

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Nice try at being polite, but I think you failed miserably, brother. While we’re doing math, maybe you can tell me what percentage of their budget that is. Oh, I’ll just tell you, about 2%. And that would only be if every single abortion they did got them the $100, which surely doesn’t happen. Again, we’re focusing on the wrong issues. I really don’t care about them recouping some of their overhead, I’m much more concerned with the whole murder part.

Edit: My math was off a little, and the figure should be closer to 3%.

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  Douglas Wilson

Doug, with respect, I expect better from you. This is a textbook bandwagon fallacy. If evolution isn’t true, then why is it so popular in academia? If homosexuality is wrong, why is the culture celebrating it so much? Maybe these videos are so popular because we are looking for any excuse to find fault within PP, whether that fault is a valid complaint or not. Again, I think that PP trying to cover their overhead is a minor side effect of a much bigger problem, and focusing so much energy on such a small point is distracting from the bigger… Read more »

ashv
ashv
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

This is war. When your enemy exposes his flank, you attack there. Nobody’s denying or ignoring the main thrust — but to ignore the opportunity these videos have generated would be irresponsible. Of course it’s a side effect of a much bigger problem! But this is a hook that will emotionally engage people who otherwise wouldn’t care.

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  ashv

I understand your point, I’m just not convinced it’s the best strategy, or that this is the exposed flank we should be attacking.

Des
Des
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Any exposed flank is the one you should be attacking. What are you waiting for, exactly?

katecho
katecho
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Max Jackl is simply in error. Wilson is not committing the bandwagon fallacy because Wilson did not argue that the response of the nation made anything true. Rather Wilson simply pointed out that the national shock contradicts Max’s assertion that these videos are about trivialities. Max can’t explain the national reaction if all this business was already understood to be business-as-usual. Max would have to argue that the majority of people were simply ignorant that the traffic in aborted baby parts was all perfectly legal and normal, and, had they already known, they would have simply yawned at these videos… Read more »

katie
katie
7 years ago
Reply to  Douglas Wilson

It rocked me not because of a particular means of disposing of bodies but because of the reminder that there are bodies to dispose of. And what was a reminder for me is probably even news to some. It is exposing the unfruitful works of darkness.

somethingclever
somethingclever
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

There’s nothing preventing you from being outraged about both. If my child were killed and then his corpse desecrated for gas money, I would be justified in being enraged about both.

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Abortions are subsidised by tax dollars. Tighter laws means fewer abortions which means less money for PP, and therefore fewer clinics. I really don’t know what you’re trying to get at here.

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Yes, 15% of their income is from abortions. Essentially none of it is from tissue donation, which is what we’re talking about. They are not selling body parts, and it is not keeping them in business, nor are they profiting from it.
Not only do your arguments fail to hold water, they aren’t even coherently connected.

katecho
katecho
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Max Jackl wrote:

They are not selling body parts, and it is not keeping them in business, nor are they profiting from it. Not only do your arguments fail to hold water, they aren’t even coherently connected.

Such confidence and condescension. But how does Max Jackl know that PP isn’t profiting from the baby parts? Has he done the cost analysis? Can he show his work?

From the PP exec in the video:

“Patients don’t get anything of course”

katecho
katecho
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Max Jackl wrote: They are not selling body parts, and it is not keeping them in business, nor are they profiting from it. Not only do your arguments fail to hold water, they aren’t even coherently connected. If they are not selling body parts, or profiting from it, then perhaps Max Jackl can explain why the parties in the video were haggling over price. Why does the PP exec ask the potential buyer what they were used to paying? What if the buyer was used to paying more than PP’s fixed shipping and handling costs? Wouldn’t any excess count as… Read more »

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

I don’t think PP ever claimed that abortion was only 2% of their revenue. The claim was that abortion only ever accounted for 2% of their procedures. Since every time they hand someone a pamphlet, they count that as a procedure, and making an appointment for a referral for the services they don’t do counts as another procedure, but abortion counts as “one procedure,” it’s easy to make that claim.

Craig French
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Max, there are a number of very big legal issues for PP beyond the personal gain stemming from tissue donation. Perhaps the argument against the slaughter of the unborn isn’t front and center, but this has potential for crippling PP beyond recovery. PP’s lawyers are probably scared stiff of the trail of info that could come to light from compelled legal discovery of PP and their facilities. There is certainly more nefarious activity they’d like hidden. This exposé is a BIG deal.

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  Craig French

First, what personal gain?
Second, how is this potentially crippling? The laws around tissue donation are to prevent profiting from it. PP is asking a very small sum to cover their overhead, which is not even illegal.

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

“which is not even illegal”

Hopefully, that’s the sobering part to all of this.

Craig French
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

They alter the care the women elect. They say one thing on paper and in word then do the procedure differently. As noted last week, PP performs partial birth abortions to preserve “specimens.” What isn’t clear is what constitutes a “specimen”? Is it the entire body or are the contents of the body made up of specimens? If the latter, we’re talking possibly hundreds of dollars per abortion. The cost to preserve and transport would not likely be higher, so” parting out” spreads the cost. It very obviously makes financial sense to the butchers. Why else would they alter their… Read more »

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  Craig French

The argument about partial birth abortions and altered care is a valid one, but it’s not the one everyone is making. This is basically my point. There are far worse things to be worried about than PP trying to cover their overhead costs.

Craig French
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

They are all valid points, money garners more attention. BTW – reducing overhead translates to higher profits. Abortion clinics always do this. That’s why their buildings are often filthy, untrained workers perform “medical” procedures, and their victims have been thrown in the dumpster.

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  Craig French

Again, valid arguments. And again, not the ones that anyone here is talking about. You’re proving my point for me. The $100 is an afterthought. There are much bigger things to be complaining about.

Des
Des
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Max, 2 Corinthians 10:5-6 applies. This is a tactical move. A tall tree can be toppled by knocking a thin wedge into a small crack.

Craig French
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Max, either they benefit financially or they don’t. If you agree that they do then you no longer have a point. If you disagree then you have misunderstood me.

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  Craig French

I think you are the one that’s misunderstood me. Of course they are benefitting financially. But if someone comes into my house and kills my wife, and takes $5 out of my wallet, I don’t spend all day in court trying to get my $5 back. My entire point is that this is all a waste and we are distracting from the actual problem, the murder.

katie
katie
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

I don’t know that it’s a distraction, Max. The nation is considering the dismemberment of bodies in utero, in those terms, because of these videos.

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  katie

But I don’t think that’s really accurate. Those like us who are pro-life are just as angry as ever, those on the pro-choice side are just as indifferent as ever, to those in the middle, this just makes us seem that much less credible.

katie
katie
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

I suppose I can only speak for myself then, but things are not “just as…as ever” here. Our sporadic contributions to the local crisis pregnancy center became a monthly donation as of last week. I’m hopeful many others, like me and unlike me, saw and heard the same things I did.

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  katie

I hope you’re right.

Tyrone Taylor
Tyrone Taylor
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

If you don’t think this is an incredible money making opportunity then you obviously have zero business experience. Name for me a product that (1) You can sell for $100, (2) is the size of a thumbnail, (3) that can be stored indefinitely in a freezer, (4) has no cost and is a byproduct of an already very profitable operation. Selling baby body parts is an incredibly profitable venture.

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  Tyrone Taylor

I think you’re the one lacking business sense. Yeah you can sell it for $100, but how much does it cost to store in the freezer? Remember, this isn’t your deep freeze in your garage. The cost of storage, transportation, and all the personnel involved is probably much greater than the $100 they’re asking for.

Tyrone Taylor
Tyrone Taylor
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

So the they have freezers that cool the air differently? They have to ship them in special cars? The personnel aren’t the ones they already employ to do the procedures? The problem is you are a sucker that bought their lie. “We just sell for cost.” If you know anything, literally anything, about variable and fixed costs you know their point is complete BS. You can ship one or one hundred for literally the exact same cost.

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  Tyrone Taylor

Actually yes, the freezers do work differently, special vehicles and special containers are required to transport the tissues, and they do have to employ a separate staff to deal with those things. Thank you for proving my point for me. If you knew anything, literally anything, about the logistics of storing and moving biological material, you know that $100 is asking very very little.

Tyrone Taylor
Tyrone Taylor
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Let’s suppose for a minute you are correct. These would result in a higher fixed cost. But your variable cost is the same because electricity and fuel are the same and you already have your employees in place. Meaning you can out scale your initial investment. So if we are talking a few dozen dead babies they are selling (I won’t use tissue) then $100 would break even. But they are killing millions. So again, their argument is a BS lie that they can get some suckers to believe.

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  Tyrone Taylor

I really hope cost analysis isn’t your profession. I want you to freeze 10 lbs of tissue and freeze 100 lbs and tell me it costs the same amount. Or drive 100 miles carrying 10 lbs and then make the same trip with 100 lbs and tell me the fuel cost the same. Hire enough technicians to process 10 samples and tell me it costs the same to hire enough technicians to process 100 samples.

katie
katie
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Can we at least agree to stop using “tissue” and stick with “bodies” or “body parts?”

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  katie

Fair enough.

Tyrone Taylor
Tyrone Taylor
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

The answer to all of your questions is compared to revenue and employee distribution they are negligibly the same, so yes yes and yes. How many dead baby organs are in 10lbs btw? 100? 1,000? 10,000? The point here is they are breaking a standing law, profiting on the sale of dead babies and are trying to BS their way out of it and you are defending them.

TedR
TedR
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

I wish you guys would put this energy into circulating the videos and posting on social media rather than argue about the business costs of transporting and storing human bodies. You are bogged down in minutiae and missing a great opportunity to further the pro-life cause.

Tyrone Taylor
Tyrone Taylor
7 years ago
Reply to  TedR

It is on my social media. This is not minutiae. It is the difference between a criminal prosecution of high up members of planned parenthood and no recourse. This is a very important point that should not be conceded. Each of these psychos at PP should get 10 years and 500k fine, as proscribed by law for selling human body parts. Throwing the leadership of PP in prison (rightfully) would be 1000 times more effective at ending abortion than all the #s in my pockets. We should demand a special prosecutor to investigate this organization for what appears to be… Read more »

ChuckM
ChuckM
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Max, first, I’m horrified by anyone trying to justify selling baby body parts by saying, “Well, it isn’t that much money!” The second video clearly indicates that there is a premium placed on certain body parts… meaning that the payment practices are not simply about reimbursement. It is about profit. It is illegal and immoral.
Second, you are a fool with regard to costs. Biological tissues are typically frozen and stored using liquid nitrogen. Liquid nitrogen, when transported in dewars, costs $2/gallon. In bulk, it comes down to $0.50/gallon. I can assure you that biological companies are buying in bulk.

timothy
timothy
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

From Anne Barnhardt is this link to StemExpress, which sells this stuff.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150715050337/http://stemexpress.com/wp-content/images/StemExpress-Digital-Catalog-2013-2014c.pdf

The section on infant liver cells his here:
http://stemexpress.com/shop/fetal-liver-cd133-stemprogenitor-cells-2/

Note that 5 million cells goes for $24,250.

Ann has a tweet with this update:
@AnnBarnhardt
One fetal liver yields 1
billion cells. So at $24,250 per 5 million cells, total revenue per
abortion could be $4,800,000 just for the liver

Herein is my prediction. The Pagan Federal Government wants a slice of that liver and will get into the business of selling and/or taxing “for the children”

David R
David R
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

There is more compensation than just the upfront fees they charge. They also have a partnership with organizations, like StemExpress, that sell these parts to research facilities. StemExpress has sold these parts for thousands of dollars. On the website of these organizations they talk of the financial benefits these clinics receive for partnering with them. So what is happening is that the clinic gets paid for the parts at the $50 price, but then get other financial benefits through a different revenue stream (donations, grants, etc) to circumvent the law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khugCMjbP24

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  David R

What you’ve done is constructed a solid argument against StemExpress and the profit that they are making from this, and I agree with you. However, none of that has anything to do with the $50 fee PP wants to cover its overhead costs, which is what everyone is all in a rage about. Again, focusing on the wrong issues.

Kevin Bratcher
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

I think I get what you’re driving at, but recognize also that PP would probably argue that the thousands of dollars they charge for abortion is “just recouping the costs associated with any surgical procedure.” I mean, do you know how much it costs to keep a clean(ish) facility, and all the cost of those poisons and those sharp instruments? That said, I think the greatest value of these videos is the fact that they are treating these “clumps of cells” as commodities. They are the capitalists of murder, and sometimes it’s useful to point this out to their fan… Read more »

David R
David R
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Also, its not just the financial aspect that is appalling. It is the totality of what we are seeing. The callousness with how the baby parts are discussed. The way the abortions are performed to maximize viable “specimens”. The idea that the baby parts are more valuable than the baby itself. The realization for those who are pro-choice that these really are babies, with brains, hearts, lungs, livers, and not just a clump of cells.

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  David R

This is my point. The financial aspect is really not appaling, it’s everything else you said that is. But that’s not what anyone is talking about. Everyone is talking about the money, and it’s such a minor side issue to the bigger point.

Alex in Wonderland
Alex in Wonderland
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Appreciate all you’ve said…I understood and agreed throughout. Miscellaneous rambles… and other points include: “The point here is they are breaking a standing law, profiting on the sale of dead babies and are trying to BS their way out of it and you are defending them.” Key words “are breaking”…that’s what the congressional committee hearings and then the individual states that are choosing to investigate (7ish so far) are out to determine…if indeed they are…if so, then how, what is BS what isn’t (from one side or another)… “If my child were killed and then his corpse desecrated for gas… Read more »

Nick Rolland
Nick Rolland
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Because what you call tissue we call the body parts of dead, murdered, mutilated babies. And anything that calls attention to the fact that they are indeed murdering babies, and murdering babies for profit, is a good thing.

Al Stout
Al Stout
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Isn’t a specimen an individual organ? So, 100 dollars each for a liver, for each lung, for each kidney, for the brain etc…

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PT-Comp-Policy-Effective-20130101.pdf

Wouldn’t this basically double the amount one got from such an abortion? Isn’t this mostly profit since the abortion is already paid for?

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  Al Stout

I really don’t know enough about the inner workings of organ donation to speculate on that.

Al Stout
Al Stout
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

It seems like they are talking about how much to get for each tissue… multiple tissues in each abortion. The reason that I think this is worth pursuing is that they are breaking the law in doing this. Think the murderous Al Capone going to jail for tax evasion…

Sarah
Sarah
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Max, what number would bump this into the heinous category for you? Enough for PP execs to take a vacation? Buy a new home? Buy a new car? What number would make you happy? Don’t lowball, and if you’re not sure what that is, don’t worry, I’ll act pleasantly surprised, and then you’ll know it’s a lowball. Where does it cross the line for you?

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  Sarah

If it could be shown that they are actually profiting.
I appreciate the condescension too. Very Christ-like.

Kevin Bratcher
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Is selling a thing only appalling if you make a profit on it?

In that case, if I operate non-profit crack house, is it less appalling because I only cover expenses?

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  Kevin Bratcher

No, but like everyone else, you’re proving my point for me. What’s appalling is that you’re making crack. The fact that you’ve charged enough to cover your costs is a pretty pointless argument for why crack is wrong. Just like focusing on the fact that PP is covering their costs is a pretty pointless argument for why abortions should be banned.

katie
katie
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

But if the Supreme Court of the United States has declared that crack is your right, and the only way to get that overturned is to show that no, it’s not a right, it’s destructive, then focusing on anything that highlights the precise nature of crack’s effect on the body is good, right?

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  katie

I think that’s like trying to put out a forest fire by throwing an ice cube on it. Sure you’re “helping”, kinda. But I think you could be focusing your efforts in more productive ways.

katie
katie
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Like what, would you suggest?

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  katie

Focusing on everything else that’s been mentioned in all of this rather than the most insignificant part of it all.

Kevin Bratcher
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

It’s not pointless – the fact that they’re selling organs at any cost is appalling, and all the more so because they’re involuntarily donated. It’s the sale itself- and the negotiation of prices, and the joking about getting a lamborghini, that is appalling. Maybe if we put it in other terms… If a doctor is murdering 30-year-olds, it’s appalling. But it’s even more appalling if he’s meeting with medical organizations ahead of time to sell livers of those 30-year-olds, because now he’s not just murdering – he’s harvesting, and selling these bodies too. Is it MORE evil than murder? No.… Read more »

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  Kevin Bratcher

I agree with everything you said. But that’s not what any of this is about. What we’re discussing is why we should be so appalled that (to use your example) the doctor wants the cost of sterilizing his equipment covered. Someone is committing murder and donating the body parts against their will, and we’re up in arms that the doctor wants someone to pay for clean scalpels. So, once again (and again, and over and over again) thank you for proving my point for me.

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  Denise

Thanks for the link, there’s some good info in there. However, none of that money is going to PP. That is the money being made by the people who receive organs from PP. It’s disgusting and I think illegal, and should be prosecuted and put to an end. But it still doesn’t show that PP is making money from this.

Denise
Denise
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

You’re right, we don’t know the profit figures PP makes, and I think future videos will reveal those figures. But their partner, Stem Express, advertises to PP clinics and out how they will grow fiscally through these “donations.”
http://youtu.be/khugCMjbP24

Alex in Wonderland
Alex in Wonderland
7 years ago
Reply to  Kevin Bratcher

“because they’re involuntarily donated”
could you explain that?

Kevin Bratcher
7 years ago

The child is involuntarily having his/her organs donated

Alex in Wonderland
Alex in Wonderland
7 years ago
Reply to  Kevin Bratcher

Okay, gotcha. From a moral standpoint as opposed to legal. From the legal, the child is not really a child and all rights of “it” are transferred to the woman. So these are voluntary donations in that sense–choice and consent of the woman. But I understand your statement. From the moral standpoint, the child…their denied inalienable rights…among them, “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”…

Sarah
Sarah
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

You say you hate abortion, that you find it heinous, but do not see what is wrong with sending off the dead babies to be experimented on. I have no patience. I have had it up to my ears with the evils of abortion. This is linked to that evil. It is a by-product of that evil. It is an extension of that evil. To hate one but not the other just feels totally impossible to me. For people who have refused to come to grips with what abortion is, who have pushed it out of their brain as much… Read more »

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  Sarah

“…but do not see what is wrong with sending off the dead babies to be experimented on.” I said no such thing, and I won’t tolerate you putting those types of words in my mouth. If you can’t come up with a well thought out counter argument then you should shut your mouth. But making false claims about what I believe is absolutely disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. Your comments have had nothing but condescensions and lies without a shred of actual argumentation. I hope you do not call yourself a Christian, because your method of debate… Read more »

Sarah
Sarah
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

“Can someone explain to me why this is so bad? Don’t get me wrong, I’m still very much against abortion. But the amount of money they’re talking about here is peanuts.”

That might have had something to do with it.

Sarah
Sarah
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Deleted. And I apologize for it.

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  Sarah

Yes, wolves in sheep’s clothing whose only purpose is to cause division by lies and slander are a special kind of disgusting to me, and to God. There will be a special place in Hell for you.

Sarah
Sarah
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Thankfully my faith isn’t in whether or not you declare there to be a special place in hell for me. I renew my apology; my comment, while not questioning your salvation, was low, and was the product of anger. Hence my apology.

Up above, I have relayed my points in what I hope is a better format.

Max Jackl
Max Jackl
7 years ago
Reply to  Sarah

I accept your apology, but I refuse to interact any further with you as you’ve not shown yourself to be capable of mature disagreement.

Sarah
Sarah
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Will you let me know when you’ve promoted me out of my special place in hell so that I can interact with you again? I am on tenterhooks.

Sarah
Sarah
7 years ago
Reply to  Sarah

I made a comment regarding Max’s show of passion toward me, yet having shown none regarding abortion and these videos. It felt beneath me, so I deleted it and apologized. But I definitely won’t apologize for my points. How Max can say he/she is against abortion but then defend PP’s receiving money for the parts of dead babies, because, hey, they have to cover the cost of the donation, is utterly beyond me.

Sarah
Sarah
7 years ago
Reply to  Sarah

No, I didn’t take it that way, no worries! Not offended. I just wanted you to know what I was apologizing for.

Sarah
Sarah
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

“No, but like everyone else, you’re proving my point for me. What’s appalling is that you’re making crack. The fact that you’ve charged enough to cover your costs is a pretty pointless argument for why crack is wrong. ” “This is my point. The financial aspect is really not appaling” If I’m reading you correctly, then you don’t understand why these videos are being used as anti-abortion tools. The murder of babies is the real evil, and that is what people should be focusing on. I would say that you cannot focus on these videos without also focusing on abortion.… Read more »

katecho
katecho
7 years ago
Reply to  Sarah

Sarah wrote: Max, what number would bump this into the heinous category for you? Enough for PP execs to take a vacation? Buy a new home? Buy a new car? What number would make you happy? Don’t lowball, and if you’re not sure what that is, don’t worry, I’ll act pleasantly surprised, and then you’ll know it’s a lowball. Where does it cross the line for you? First, I find Sarah’s use of the immediate context brilliant, rhetorically. Nicely done. I think it’s in the same category as Jesus asking the Pharisees whether John’s baptism was from heaven or from… Read more »

Bike bubba
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Planned Parenthood kills about 350,000 of the pre-born per year. Multiply that by, say, a dozen body parts for sale and that $100. That’s a big chunk of Planned Parenthood’s $1.3 billion annual budget. So is the half billion or so of federal funding. Take either of those away, and it becomes very difficult for them to operate their abattoirs. Now granted, once you grant the principle of murdering the defenseless in cold blood, this is only…..a word picture fails me here….but it’s a big deal in that (a) it demonstrates the mentality of the movement and (b) arguably does… Read more »

Denise
Denise
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

A business professor breaks down the numbers here: http://www.yoest.com/2015/07/17/planned-parenthoods-baby-organ-profit-center/

ashv
ashv
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

The primary reason this is bad is because it reveals the true incentive structure. Many abortionettes have mouthed platitudes about “safe, legal and rare”; we are now seeing that there are real reasons that this is a lie, and there are significant motivations to increase the number of infants murdered. The amount of money isn’t the issue; it’s destruction of what little moral high ground they’ve been able to fabricate.

jillybean
jillybean
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Max, you may be right in theory but I think you are overlooking the power of the visual imagination. What do people think of when you mention the Holocaust? Hideous medical experiments, lampshades made from human flesh, the extraction of gold from dental work, and the charming custom of making victims dig their own graves. You could say that with the exception of torturous medical experiments on live people, none of these atrocities worsened the Nazis crimes against humanity. The evil was in the murder of the innocent, not in what was done with their bodies. In fact, you could… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
7 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Yes. Yes and yes. Beautifully said.

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
7 years ago
Reply to  Max Jackl

Max,

Forget the dollars; let’s presume the allowable expenses under 42 U.S. Code § 289g–2(e) equal the fees charged, such that there is neither “profit” nor “valuable consideration” under either any variant of “Generally Accepted Accounting Principles” or under any made-up accounting method PP can find a CPA wiling to testify under oath is legit.

Instead, think about “alteration” of “method,” “timing,” or “procedure.” Based on the two videos, do you believe PP’s skirts still clean?

I don’t.

Kelly

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
7 years ago

Difficult and counter-intuitive as it may first seem, I believe “selling” fetal body parts (“valuable consideration”) is the LEAST of PP’s problems from these two tapes. Sale per se is indeed prohibited by a different part of the 1993 statute (National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, Public Law 103-43, June 10, 1993). However, since the statute has a exclusion in the definitions which allows payment for such items as prep and shipping, even with a solid Republican Attorney General, I think PP has a decent chance of beating the rap on “sale.” (I shifted that part of the… Read more »

katecho
katecho
7 years ago

Nice legal analysis. Looks like these videos are incriminating on many fronts, not just the ethical and public relations front.

Alex in Wonderland
Alex in Wonderland
7 years ago

I have some thoughts (based on the first video transcript and the way Nucatola explained some things) about this: ————————- “In research carried out under subsection (a) of this section, HUMAN FETAL TISSUE MAY BE USED ONLY IF THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN WITH RESPECT TO OBTAINING THE TISSUE FROM THE WOMAN INVOLVED MAKES A STATEMENT, MADE IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY THE PHYSICIAN, DECLARING THAT [emphasis added] — (A) in the case of tissue obtained pursuant to an induced abortion— (i) the consent of the woman for the abortion was obtained prior to requesting or obtaining consent for a donation of… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
7 years ago

Andy in W, I’m using quotes/words from the videos, not a “What if?” The entire “crush above or below” bit from the first video looks like a confession to altering the procedure to me. If the purpose of the abortion is to simply to kill the ( ___ ), then why is ultrasound needed HERE but not THERE? In how many abortions is ultrasound used for forceps placement? If all you want to do is crush the ( ____ ) into small enough parts to safely extract, what difference does it make from which end you start the crushing from?… Read more »

Alex in Wonderland
Alex in Wonderland
7 years ago

Sometimes I really do feel like I’ve fallen into a rabbit hole these days. Off and on, I’ve been attempting to write a response here–all the while reading trying to keep up with incoming thoughts and headlines–to the point I’m not sure what to think any more. “But I nearly forgot, you must close your eyes otherwise you won’t see anything at all.” And then I KNOW what I want to ask or say, but…”adventures lead to trouble”. Next think you know I might be thrown off a mountainside or accused of not hating abortion enough :) All that to… Read more »

Alex in Wonderland
Alex in Wonderland
7 years ago

“Andy in W,” Andrew, Andy, or Alex…in Wonderland, nonetheless…or proof of it :) ” If the goal is simply to kill, what’s the point of saving (harvesting?) particular parts? As in custom ordering particular parts?” i think they said it’s more that the company lets them know what they are interested in…the patient has given consent, they do what they can (yes I know eyebrow raising ethics or potential problems, yes)…but that may be part of it “the goal is to simply kill…and one way works as well as another without any harm to the patient, not solely for the… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
7 years ago

[ADDED 7:38 pm CDT Turns out PP has tried to spin the first tape. See after my two quotes to Alex in W.] “okay, they do emphasize repeatedly there is consent, that it is voluntary, that it is a separate topic of discussion from original counseling…that they have to sign…” No one is raising “consent” as a issue to the original decision to abort. To the extent “consent” matters at all to “harvesting,” as in “better parts/better specimens,” I’m not reading the statute as the woman’s consent to making a change in method OK, even if she made a genuine… Read more »

Alex in Wonderland
Alex in Wonderland
7 years ago

“research carried out under subsection (a) of this section, HUMAN FETAL TISSUE MAY BE USED ONLY IF THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN WITH RESPECT TO OBTAINING THE TISSUE FROM THE WOMAN INVOLVED MAKES A STATEMENT, MADE IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY THE PHYSICIAN, DECLARING THAT [emphasis added] —” okay, they do emphasize repeatedly there is consent, that it is voluntary, that it is a separate topic of discussion from original counseling…that they have to sign… “the consent of the woman for the abortion was obtained prior to requesting or obtaining consent for a donation of the tissue for use in such research;”… Read more »

The Canberean
7 years ago

Sorry but I just couldn’t get through the video. It was making me weep inside.

The evil calm is just too horrific to engage with.

bethyada
7 years ago

Max is getting some push back though I think his motivation is more honest than some are willing to concede. The way I read him is that while this video may be rhetorically effective, we must be careful about supporting it if it is inaccurate. Max hates abortion. Max hates the idea that body parts of murdered babies are traded (with or without profiteering). But if PP is merely covering the costs of distribution (as horrible as distribution may be); that is, income from selling is the same as the cost of storage and transport, ie. no increased income, then… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
7 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

First Bethyada, then Max, Skip the murder of babies because it’s legal so it’s not murder. Secular law does not deal with sin. Only with crime. No human jailer has keys to the gates of Hell. Skip the money. Human judges could find enough of a CPA fig leaf to hide behind to say the expenses are excluded from “valuable considerations.” Instead, zero in on the timing, method, and procedure being altered. Those ARE human crimes according to the statute. Yes, human judges have recently demonstrated an acute ability to twist and ignore plain words “beyond parody.” (Scalia was on… Read more »

Alex in Wonderland
Alex in Wonderland
7 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

Thanks for this summary. As for this, “As these people are self confessed murders do you really think that they are telling the truth?” I’ve known liars and honest folk of all stripes. Some of the best liars to be in Christendom, and some honest folks outside of Christendom, that in spite of whatever sins they be in or different vantage (even atheistic), couldn’t imagine lying otherwise. So…I guess I hesitate, given the casual non-accusatory nature of the interviews, to throw away all their statements as falsehoods. I don’t realllly think they are telling the truth or that they realllly… Read more »

bethyada
7 years ago

That is true Alex, but until we know specifics we need to be careful about what we believe. We may know of a person who sins in one area but is scrupulously honest. But when we don’t know an individual we can only guesstimate. It is reasonable to apply prejudice based on what we do know. As Doug has said elsewhere, sins group. I think he would argue specific sins tend to group. Perhaps Envy and unforgiveness, Anger and sexual immorality, Murder and lying. Though I haven’t thought thru this enough. So with no further information about an individual whom… Read more »

Alex in Wonderland
Alex in Wonderland
7 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

“but until we know specifics we need to be careful about what we believe.” of course. that’s my point, yes. “prove all things…” “We may know of a person who sins in one area but is scrupulously honest.” yes, or a person who is righteous in one area but unscrupulously dishonest. “But when we don’t know an individual we can only guesstimate.” exactly, and keep searching, waiting for the truth or error to be revealed and be cautious of hasty judgment even as we warn or issue caution. “It is reasonable to apply prejudice based on what we do know.”… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
7 years ago

Max and Alex/Andy in W, Gatter on the second tape: START Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem, which may not be a big problem. If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS [manual vacuum aspirator] or something with less suction, in order to increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient, “We’re not doing anything different in our care for you.” Now, to me, that’s kind of a specious… Read more »