Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part II Covfefe

[scudsucker]

FTFY - he changed his username

I don't think the two are the same, but the circumstances are suspicious. However, Xarog was madder than GGBM.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

To be honest, I am far more likely to ignore you than Emjay. At least she is mature enough to discuss differing opinions with a level of honesty.

You are the one who is engaging dishonestly, asserting without providing any evidence that the video has been debunked, ignoring the government forensic auditors from 2019 that actually endorsed its legitimacy, while crying constantly that what you have been presented with doesn't meet your arbitrary standards.

So ya, please do ignore me.

 

[Emjay]

Oh Emjay! You have brought up the Xarog logical fallacy; wherein a poster posts an insanely long video and expects people to watch that batshit for hours before rebutting each "point" posited in said video.

Sorry, but no. Use your words.

It's not bat ****, scud. It's undercover footage of some very disturbing conversations. There is zero commentary or anyone's opinions. What I am saying is that you have pre-judged something without giving it *any* due consideration. If you don't want to, that's cool too. If you don't care, don't watch it. But please don't try debunk this point of view when you don't want to engage with the content. My words mean very little as (at least in this thread) every discussion is done along partisan lines, and done with the very same sort of suspicion and close mindedness. I am guilty of this, and so are others. I am asking that you be cognizant of that.

 

[scudsucker]

You are the one who is engaging dishonestly, asserting without providing any evidence that the video has been debunked, ignoring the government forensic auditors from 2019 that actually endorsed its legitimacy, while crying constantly that what you have been presented with doesn't meet your arbitrary standards.

So ya, please do ignore me.

Small children are so cute!

 

[scudsucker]

It's not bat ****, scud. It's undercover footage of some very disturbing conversations. There is zero commentary or anyone's opinions. What I am saying is that you have pre-judged something without giving it *any* due consideration. If you don't want to, that's cool too. If you don't care, don't watch it. But please don't try debunk this point of view when you don't want to engage with the content. My words mean very little as (at least in this thread) every discussion is done along partisan lines, and done with the very same sort of suspicion and close mindedness. I am guilty of this, and so are others. I am asking that you be cognizant of that.

SHOW. THE. MARKET. Prove that foetal tissue sales even exist outside your highly edited video where 'undercover' agent provocateurs obtained "damning" footage of someone from Planned Parenthood "selling" foetal tissue.

If you can show me one - just one - entity/person/company that buys illegally
obtained foetal tissue I'll concede; even though the volume of foetal tissue produced (and destroyed) by abortions will overwhelm that single example...





Bonus points: could you explain the use case for foetal parts? Because modern science doesn't have any.

 

[Emjay]

SHOW. THE. MARKET. Prove that foetal tissue sales even exist outside your highly edited video where 'undercover' agent provocateurs obtained "damning" footage of some one from Planned Parenthood "selling" foetal tissue.

If you can show me one - just one - entity/person /company that buys illegally obtain
obtained foetal tissue I'll concede; even though the volume of foetal tissue produced (and destroyed) by abortions will overwhelm that single example...

WATCH. THE. VIDEOS. THAT. WERE. CONFIRMED. BY. A. PANEL. OF. THREE. JUDGES. FROM. THE. APPEALS. COURT.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

SHOW. THE. MARKET. Prove that foetal tissue sales even exist outside your highly edited video where 'undercover' agent provocateurs obtained "damning" footage of someone from Planned Parenthood "selling" foetal tissue.

If you can show me one - just one - entity/person/company that buys illegally
obtained foetal tissue I'll concede; even though the volume of foetal tissue produced (and destroyed) by abortions will overwhelm that single example...

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-fetal-tissue-20171209-story.html

Prosecutors opened an investigation into the companies in September 2015 after a complaint was submitted by Irvine-based Center for Medical Progress. The anti-abortion group gained national attention in 2015 after releasing a video showing Planned Parenthood affiliates discussing the sale of aborted fetuses.

In October 2016, prosecutors filed a complaint against the companies in Orange County Superior Court alleging unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices.

The lawsuit accused the companies of illegally selling cells from fetal brain tissue for up to $1,100 per vial from 2009 to 2015, prosecutors said. Fetal tissue and cells were sold to pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions in Japan, China, Singapore, South Korea, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, the Netherlands, Canada and the United Kingdom, authorities said.

Go ask them who they sold the stuff to.

 

[scudsucker]

WATCH. THE. VIDEOS. THAT. WERE. CONFIRMED. BY. A. PANEL. OF. THREE. JUDGES. FROM. THE. APPEALS. COURT.

Somehow I don't see the word "sales" here. Could it be that the tissues were ... gasp ... donated?


Oh. Yes. Yes, that indeed seems to be the case. Is it unethical? Yes. Is it selling tissue - as Emjay & GGBM fantasize about? - no.

 

[Emjay]

Somehow I don't see the word "sales" here. Could it be that the tissues were ... gasp ... donated?

Oh. Yes. Yes, that indeed looms to be the case. Is it unethical? Yes. Is it selling tissue - as Emjay & GGBM fantasize about? - no.

The lawsuit accused the companies of illegally selling cells from fetal brain tissue for up to $1,100 per vial from 2009 to 2015, prosecutors said. Fetal tissue and cells were sold to pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions in Japan, China, Singapore, South Korea, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, the Netherlands, Canada and the United Kingdom, authorities said.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-fetal-tissue-20171209-story.html

If you bothered watching the verified videos, they talk about exchanging tissue for money. That is not a donation.

Even if it were a "donation" it is still morally questionable and wrong. The mothers were not informed either so that means there was no consent. The abortion is drastically altered to allow the tissue to be harvested.

 

[scudsucker]

Oh
Ooh. Scary stuff. Every single abortion may end up in a vial. LET'S ALL BAN ABORTION.

You realise that by your own numbers, the 10 to 15% of women (based on your own claims and "sources") who have an abortion will glut whatever "market" (which you have not yet defined) there exists for foetus parts?

Would you care to show any actual use case for any part of foetuses that is not already catered to by use of harvested stem cells?

Just so you can claim to make sense!




Oh... and when I say "show" I mean it in the scientific sense, as in "prove"

 

[Emjay]

Oh
Ooh. Scary stuff. Every single abortion may end up in a vial. LET'S ALL BAN ABORTION.

You realise that by your own numbers, the 10 to 15% of women (based on your own claims and "sources") who have an abortion will glut whatever "market" (which you have not yet defined) there exists for foetus parts?

Would you care to show any actual use case for any part of foetuses that is not already catered to by use of harvested stem cells?

Just so you can claim to make sense!

I am not making an argument to stop abortions because of what is happening here. This is just part of the depravity of this whole debate, and it is interesting that it is not a national main stream media frenzy. The moral implications of selling women's baby tissue are pretty big ones.

Next time read slower. We are done here.

 

[scudsucker]

Next time read slower. We are done here.

An elegant and classy way to exit the debate. My salutations.

 

[ISP cash cow]

I don't see anything in your source that would justify such a claim.

On the other hand:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678377/



Edit: https://www.guttmacher.org/news-rel...ence-us-women-despite-dramatic-declines-rates

This source is more up to date and supports the 1/4 number Emjay quoted.

From your same source and the same block that you quoted though

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678377/

Abortion is a common medical procedure and an important component of public health.1,2 In 2014, 926 190 abortions were performed in the United States; the abortion rate was 14.6 abortions per 1000 women aged 15 to 44 years, meaning that in that year 1.5% of women of reproductive age had an abortion.3 In 2008, it was estimated that 30% of women aged 15 to 44 years would have an abortion by age 45 years if the prevailing rate continued,4 and this figure is often used to demonstrate the commonality of abortion.2,5However, the abortion rate has declined substantially since that time—14% between 2011 and 2014 alone3—and it is likely that the estimate of the lifetime incidence of abortion has also declined.

so basically your figures were based on an estimation and then the statistics showed the numbers dropping

 

[Gingerbeardman]

From your same source and the same block that you quoted though

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678377/



so basically your figures were based on an estimation and then the statistics showed the numbers dropping

Right, and from 2008 to 2014 it dropped from 30% to 25%. Point?

 

[ISP cash cow]

Right, and from 2008 to 2014 it dropped from 30% to 25%. Point?

it did not drop from 30% it was estimated to BE 30% if the trend carried on, however the trend declined

in 2014 it was 1.5%

in 2014, 926 190 abortions were performed in the United States; the abortion rate was 14.6 abortions per 1000 women aged 15 to 44 years, meaning that in that year 1.5% of women of reproductive age had an abortion.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

it did not drop from 30% it was estimated to BE 30% if the trend carried on, however the trend declined in 2014 it was 1.5%

You know that comparing the yearly abortion rate to the lifetime abortion rate is comparing apples and oranges, right?

 

[Unhappy438]

You want to discuss the economics of selling baby tissue? If you want to do that, you need to understand the use of digoxin (which kills the baby before it is ripped apart) and how many abortions happen in the later stages of pregnancy. Digoxin destroys the tissue and viability of stem cells, so it is not used. Oh, and a baby can feel pain at that stage. Tissue harvest is not possible from abortions that use the suction and chemical methods, which is generally the procedures that are done early on. I think chemical abortions only happen up to 10 weeks. Suction up to 18, depending on the size of the baby.

Does the frequency talk to the morality of this, scudsucker?

Feel pain at which stage? I also find it amusing how anti abortionists always feel the need to use super emotive language.

 

[Unhappy438]

I don't think the two are the same, but the circumstances are suspicious. However, Xarog was madder than GGBM.

You're thinking wrong then.

 

[ISP cash cow]

You know that comparing the yearly abortion rate to the lifetime abortion rate is comparing apples and oranges, right?

If the yearly abortion rate is 1.5% and is being shown to be declining would this not mean that your average over the lifetime abortion would be about 1.5%? or do you actually have the lifetime abortion rate statistics on hand?

The irony I find though is that you posted that statistic to argue almightybenders figures (to try and prove closer to 30% figure than 1.5%) but now that you have been shown the irregularities in your own post you now claiming comparing apples to oranges

 

[Gingerbeardman]

If the yearly abortion rate is 1.5% and is being shown to be declining would this not mean that your average over the lifetime abortion would be about 1.5%? or do you actually have the lifetime abortion rate statistics on hand?

You clearly didn't look at the link at the bottom of my post.

And if 1.5% of fertile women get an abortion each year, then the chances that any one woman would have an abortion over a period of 20 years is roughly 30%.

The irony I find though is that you posted that statistic to argue almightybenders figures (to try and prove closer to 30% figure than 1.5%) but now that you have been shown the irregularities in your own post you now claiming comparing apples to oranges

You don't know what you are talking about.