duderonomy Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 I read it and don't believe it made a case for defunding PP. I don't think it did either, but I also don't think that was the point of the article. I linked to the article because it takes a look from another point of view from the one SL linked to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilith666 Posted August 7, 2015 Author Share Posted August 7, 2015 I disregard the new videos (5 now, last I heard). If the first ones were BS, it's not likely that the others will be worth looking into. This CFMP have already shown themselves to be untrustworthy and fear-mongering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 I disregard the new videos (5 now, last I heard). If the first ones were BS, it's not likely that the others will be worth looking into. This CFMP have already shown themselves to be untrustworthy and fear-mongering. I don't think it's yet been determined if the first ones were BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentLoner Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 I disregard the new videos (5 now, last I heard). If the first ones were BS, it's not likely that the others will be worth looking into. This CFMP have already shown themselves to be untrustworthy and fear-mongering. I don't think it's yet been determined if the first ones were BS. Actually it very much has. If you bothered to look at a single source either Lilith or I posted you would know that. lol, and you were so fanatical about your link being read... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 I disregard the new videos (5 now, last I heard). If the first ones were BS, it's not likely that the others will be worth looking into. This CFMP have already shown themselves to be untrustworthy and fear-mongering. I don't think it's yet been determined if the first ones were BS. Actually it very much has. If you bothered to look at a single source either Lilith or I posted you would know that. lol, and you were so fanatical about your link being read... Speaking of that link, SL, did you read it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 I disregard the new videos (5 now, last I heard). If the first ones were BS, it's not likely that the others will be worth looking into. This CFMP have already shown themselves to be untrustworthy and fear-mongering. I don't think it's yet been determined if the first ones were BS. Yes, it has. They were heavily edited to make it look like things where happening very differently than the way they were actually happening. That is BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 I disregard the new videos (5 now, last I heard). If the first ones were BS, it's not likely that the others will be worth looking into. This CFMP have already shown themselves to be untrustworthy and fear-mongering. I don't think it's yet been determined if the first ones were BS. Yes, it has. They were heavily edited to make it look like things where happening very differently than the way they were actually happening. That is BS. So when the PP people talked about changing the procedure so they could provide an entire human body if needed, or when they talked about not crushing heads or other organs if that was needed, they only said that because the vids were edited? OK then, seems legit to me. I thought I heard and saw something else. Damn my lying eyes and ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 I disregard the new videos (5 now, last I heard). If the first ones were BS, it's not likely that the others will be worth looking into. This CFMP have already shown themselves to be untrustworthy and fear-mongering. I don't think it's yet been determined if the first ones were BS. Yes, it has. They were heavily edited to make it look like things where happening very differently than the way they were actually happening. That is BS. So when the PP people talked about changing the procedure so they could provide an entire human body if needed, or when they talked about not crushing heads or other organs if that was needed, they only said that because the vids were edited? That is not what I said. Are you being argumentative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentLoner Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 4 More Deceptive Edits In The Fifth Video Attempting To Smear Planned Parenthood The Center for Medical Progress' fifth undercover video attempting to smear Planned Parenthood using deceptively-edited footage again falls flat. The video claims to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing changes to procedures to accommodate tissue donation, but the full, unedited transcript reveals that portions of sentences and extensive discussion of patient safety protocols were edited out to mislead viewers. http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/04/4-more-deceptive-edits-in-the-fifth-video-attem/204766 CNN's Camerota Acknowledges How The Debunked Videos Smearing Planned Parenthood Have Been Deceptively Edited Alisyn Camerota: Planned Parenthood Seems "To Be Much Better Represented" In The Full, Unedited Transcripts Than In The Videos http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/08/05/cnns-camerota-acknowledges-how-the-debunked-vid/204774 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 4 More Deceptive Edits In The Fifth Video Attempting To Smear Planned Parenthood The Center for Medical Progress' fifth undercover video attempting to smear Planned Parenthood using deceptively-edited footage again falls flat. The video claims to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing changes to procedures to accommodate tissue donation, but the full, unedited transcript reveals that portions of sentences and extensive discussion of patient safety protocols were edited out to mislead viewers. http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/04/4-more-deceptive-edits-in-the-fifth-video-attem/204766 CNN's Camerota Acknowledges How The Debunked Videos Smearing Planned Parenthood Have Been Deceptively Edited Alisyn Camerota: Planned Parenthood Seems "To Be Much Better Represented" In The Full, Unedited Transcripts Than In The Videos http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/08/05/cnns-camerota-acknowledges-how-the-debunked-vid/204774 Why should I go to your George Soro's Media Matters site (LOL right back at ya), when I can't even get you to say whether or not you read an article on Breitbart? Why is it so hard for you to say yes or no? You don't have to agree with it, but did you read it or not? After that, I'll try to wade through your emotional rants about my emotional rants and maybe, just maybe, we could discuss this like adults, and you can stop embarrassing yourself like you did by proving my point in this quote: "And there's the word, "convenience." Can you define convenience? Is it "convenience" to not want to lose your job? Not have to drop out of school and work minimum wage jobs? Not wanting to be tied forever to an abusive ex or rapist? Not want to sink further into poverty? Wanting to care for the children you already have?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 I disregard the new videos (5 now, last I heard). If the first ones were BS, it's not likely that the others will be worth looking into. This CFMP have already shown themselves to be untrustworthy and fear-mongering. I don't think it's yet been determined if the first ones were BS. Yes, it has. They were heavily edited to make it look like things where happening very differently than the way they were actually happening. That is BS. So when the PP people talked about changing the procedure so they could provide an entire human body if needed, or when they talked about not crushing heads or other organs if that was needed, they only said that because the vids were edited? That is not what I said. Are you being argumentative? Really, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Okay, to clarify the vids were edited to make it look like PP was selling body parts on the black market. In reality they were arranging for parts to go for medical research. It's a big difference. The edit put a sinister spin on things and that spin was BS. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilith666 Posted August 10, 2015 Author Share Posted August 10, 2015 Mymistake is exactly right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Okay, to clarify the vids were edited to make it look like PP was selling body parts on the black market. In reality they were arranging for parts to go for medical research. It's a big difference. The edit put a sinister spin on things and that spin was BS. The "buyers" were representing a "real" company. I didn't see anywhere that PP thought it was dealing with an illegal black market outfit. It would be a big difference, but I just don't think it's there. If PP thought they were dealing with a black market outfit selling parts under the table or on the deep web silk road or something, don't you think that would have been the headline? Again, what was said in the edited vids was bad enough. Editing is not the issue. It's not like whole sentences were constructed of spliced clips. It's not like an actor overdubbed the PP voices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilith666 Posted August 10, 2015 Author Share Posted August 10, 2015 What they said is not the issue. We already knew before the videos that they were performing abortions - did you think those happened by magic? Of course they said what they did. The issue is they are being accused of illegal activities, and there is no evidence to support this claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 What they said is not the issue. We already knew before the videos that they were performing abortions - did you think those happened by magic? Of course they said what they did. The issue is they are being accused of illegal activities, and there is no evidence to support this claim. Some states think there is something illegal going on, and are looking into it. Let's wait until the rest of the vids come out (if they ever do) and see what happens. I won't apologize for what I think about abortion, but if I'm wrong about the vids, I'll say so. Will you do the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilith666 Posted August 11, 2015 Author Share Posted August 11, 2015 Yes. If I see evidence to support it, I will. I said in my blog post that a health clinic would be exploiting families if it were selling tissue, and I still believe that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentLoner Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 4 More Deceptive Edits In The Fifth Video Attempting To Smear Planned Parenthood The Center for Medical Progress' fifth undercover video attempting to smear Planned Parenthood using deceptively-edited footage again falls flat. The video claims to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing changes to procedures to accommodate tissue donation, but the full, unedited transcript reveals that portions of sentences and extensive discussion of patient safety protocols were edited out to mislead viewers. http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/04/4-more-deceptive-edits-in-the-fifth-video-attem/204766 CNN's Camerota Acknowledges How The Debunked Videos Smearing Planned Parenthood Have Been Deceptively Edited Alisyn Camerota: Planned Parenthood Seems "To Be Much Better Represented" In The Full, Unedited Transcripts Than In The Videos http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/08/05/cnns-camerota-acknowledges-how-the-debunked-vid/204774 Why should I go to your George Soro's Media Matters site (LOL right back at ya), when I can't even get you to say whether or not you read an article on Breitbart? Why is it so hard for you to say yes or no? You don't have to agree with it, but did you read it or not? After that, I'll try to wade through your emotional rants about my emotional rants and maybe, just maybe, we could discuss this like adults, and you can stop embarrassing yourself like you did by proving my point in this quote: "And there's the word, "convenience." Can you define convenience? Is it "convenience" to not want to lose your job? Not have to drop out of school and work minimum wage jobs? Not wanting to be tied forever to an abusive ex or rapist? Not want to sink further into poverty? Wanting to care for the children you already have?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentLoner Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 What they said is not the issue. We already knew before the videos that they were performing abortions - did you think those happened by magic? Of course they said what they did. The issue is they are being accused of illegal activities, and there is no evidence to support this claim. Some states think there is something illegal going on, and are looking into it. Let's wait until the rest of the vids come out (if they ever do) and see what happens. I won't apologize for what I think about abortion, but if I'm wrong about the vids, I'll say so. Will you do the same? LOL, yeah, states with conservatives in charge who wanted any excuse to go after Planned Parenthood from the start. If their honest concern was trade in organs, they would be drafting legislation to target that practice, not defunding an organization that provides healthcare. The Planned Parenthood in New Hampshire for example, wasn't even a participant in any tissue donation programs. So if there was some black market scheme, they weren't even a part of it. The state didn't even bother investigating before cutting funding. Can you at least manage to grasp that one? And how are you going to learn you are wrong about the vids when you refuse to look at any evidence that doesn't jibe with your personal emotions about abortion? you can stop embarrassing yourself like you did by proving my point in this quote: "And there's the word, "convenience." Can you define convenience? Is it "convenience" to not want to lose your job? Not have to drop out of school and work minimum wage jobs? Not wanting to be tied forever to an abusive ex or rapist? Not want to sink further into poverty? Wanting to care for the children you already have?" You know, its increasingly hilarious to me that you keep failing to grasp the basic point here - you have refused to answer dozens of questions from me and Lilith, yet whine endlessly about your sole pointless one getting the same treatment. Start answering the questions you are ignoring and then you can ask me one. Cry about my sources if you will (as if they compared to Breitbart, lol), but unlike your link, my posts were not opinion pieces, they were simple facts. Even if you take issue with the source, the unedited transcripts by themselves support Planned Parenthood. Take a look at those sometime, will you? And what point was it I proved exactly? That women's lives are indeed dismissable as "convenience" in your mind, that you share the contempt towards women that most anti abortion groups do? In that case, I'm hardly the one who should be embarrassed here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jutta Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 This might be off topic, but considering how (in the recent Republican debate) it was pretty much established that the Republican candidates are completely against abortion in all circumstances, I tend to think this was just an attempt to fire up their "base". Planned Parenthood isn't the only abortion provider in the US-- I'm not sure why people are led to believe they are, but they're not. I worked at a GYN office in NJ that had doctors who performed abortions (albeit, they would schedule them in the actual hospital as surgeries, not in the outpatient office itself). They were a regular group of OBGYN doctors and also had infertility specialists as well. It wasn't something blatantly advertised, but several of the doctors were willing to provide the procedure... I am completely scared $hitless that there are presidential candidates who believe that if I were to have a life-threatening pregnancy, my life would be irrelevant-- essentially sentencing me to death. I'm even more scared that there are thousands of nutty internet posters who support that position. My sister had an ectopic pregnancy, and I worked in two GYN offices and saw a lot of extremely sick patients, so I don't buy this "fatal pregnancies are rare" BS. Death does result from childbirth at times. Medical science isn't able to prevent all deaths. I'm not even going to touch the whole pregnancy-rape "gift from god" topic... Look up Nicolae Ceausescu and look into our future if their "no birth control/ no abortion" comes to fruition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Okay, to clarify the vids were edited to make it look like PP was selling body parts on the black market. In reality they were arranging for parts to go for medical research. It's a big difference. The edit put a sinister spin on things and that spin was BS. This sums it up quite well, at least in my opinion after spending about 5 hours researching the topic. I'm not surprised at all, i.e., not in the least, that some group of political/religious hacks did what they did here. Similar groups have done similar things in the past, and similar groups will do similar things in the future. What is quite disturbing is how certain members of the US Congress have taken the lies and misrepresentations suggested by these quote-mined and edited videos and are now attempting to defund Planned Parenthood. They know better (or should know better). In my book, these high level politicians are just as smarmy and disingenuous as the ones who made the videos. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Just found this, great read: Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video Several Republican presidential candidates have claimed that Planned Parenthood is “profiting” from abortions. But the full, unedited video they cite as evidence shows a Planned Parenthood executive repeatedly saying its clinics want to cover their costs, not make money, when donating fetal tissue from abortions for scientific research. Four experts in the field of human tissue procurement told us the price range discussed in the video — $30 to $100 per patient — represents a reasonable fee. “There’s no way there’s a profit at that price,” said Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository.” Republicans made their claims following the release of a secretly recorded video showing Deborah Nucatola, the senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood, discussing the procurement of fetal tissues when conducting abortions. The edited video, released July 14 by an anti-abortion group called the Center for Medical Progress, leaves the impression that Nucatola is talking about Planned Parenthood affiliates making money from fetal tissue. But the edited video ignores other things Nucatola said that contradict that idea. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/07/31/fact-checking-factcheck-orgs-look-at-the-planned-parenthood-videos/ OK, I'll bite. I read the entire piece and the rebuttal can be summed up into 2 objections: 1. PP doctors are still looking to profit from the organ donation however small despite the non-profit status of PP. The writer is trying hard in negating the point that PP is non-profit. From what I read, with the angle that I don't see abortion as evil, it is a non-issue. They were discussing material handling fee. The doctors didn't know the figures on top of their heads, the numbers were wild guesses. Of course they were looking to cover the material handling fee. Of course anybody running anything would not mind if something that is supposed to break even yield a very small profit, say 0.1%. There is no way everything that is supposed to be break even will be exactly yield $0.00. Also, the quotes by the doctors that sounded PP tried to make profit was because the other party was trying to make her saying that. In the whole video you can see the other party was trying to offer more money for the donation. She was set up to say that. 2. There is no fact checking the other videos. This point is very easy. The other videos are similar to the first one. The rebuttal in general is exactly the same. The doctors were set up to say they wanted profit from tissue donation. The doctors were trying to cover material handling fee. They wanted to make sure PP doesn't close the door because PP loose too much money. This is why no one bother with criticizing the other videos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 4 More Deceptive Edits In The Fifth Video Attempting To Smear Planned Parenthood The Center for Medical Progress' fifth undercover video attempting to smear Planned Parenthood using deceptively-edited footage again falls flat. The video claims to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing changes to procedures to accommodate tissue donation, but the full, unedited transcript reveals that portions of sentences and extensive discussion of patient safety protocols were edited out to mislead viewers. http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/04/4-more-deceptive-edits-in-the-fifth-video-attem/204766 CNN's Camerota Acknowledges How The Debunked Videos Smearing Planned Parenthood Have Been Deceptively Edited Alisyn Camerota: Planned Parenthood Seems "To Be Much Better Represented" In The Full, Unedited Transcripts Than In The Videos http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/08/05/cnns-camerota-acknowledges-how-the-debunked-vid/204774 Why should I go to your George Soro's Media Matters site (LOL right back at ya), when I can't even get you to say whether or not you read an article on Breitbart? Why is it so hard for you to say yes or no? You don't have to agree with it, but did you read it or not? After that, I'll try to wade through your emotional rants about my emotional rants and maybe, just maybe, we could discuss this like adults, and you can stop embarrassing yourself like you did by proving my point in this quote: "And there's the word, "convenience." Can you define convenience? Is it "convenience" to not want to lose your job? Not have to drop out of school and work minimum wage jobs? Not wanting to be tied forever to an abusive ex or rapist? Not want to sink further into poverty? Wanting to care for the children you already have?" Media matters has done great research for their articles. They have good track records. Please point to a mistake that they did and they refused to admit the mistake. Breitbart.com on the other hand doesn't have good track records. On top of my head, breitbart.com was attacking a country music singer simply because he planned to sing at a gun safety fundraiser. The writer, iirc, was on slippery slope writing about a state was on the way to gun confiscation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts