Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 81
  1. #41
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    That's not what she said. She said now we do X as our SOP, I'll speak to our surgeon about changing the SOP to Y and that's what will be "baked into the contract".

    ...

    That the individual patient and doctor have to sign a waiver was given. The intent of the law is to prevent the doctor from altering the clinics SOPs in order to obtain tissue. Nowhere in your evidence did I see a prohibition against a clinic's ever changing their SOPs again. Further, it was her opinion that there was no diference - "technicalities" she said - between the protocols...but it would be discussed with the surgeon
    A) Can you support that is what she said? IE that her comments were about changing their standard approach for all abortions?


    B) Can you support that changing standard procedures for the purpose of obtaining additional body parts is within the scope of the law?


    Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Me personally? No.
    Interesting. Regardless, you are incorrect about the law.

    First, we must note that under the agreement being proposed, PP bore no direct costs for the donation since the researcher was to conduct all the work themselves. Thus no "additional costs" could be found.

    We should also note that no costs have been proposed that meet the legal requirement here:

    (3) The term “valuable consideration” does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.[/indent]
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t...289g%E2%80%932


    1) transportation: since research technicians were to show up on site to obtain the donations, no transportation by PP was involved.

    2) implantation: no discussion of implantation was covered, this would have clearly been part of the follow on research anyway and thus not a PP cost.

    3) processing: research technicians were the ones performing all processing in the video discussed, so no direct cost of processing was born by PP.

    4) preservation: again, the receiver was on site taking control of the organs as they were processed, so no preservation costs were born by PP.

    5) quality control:clearly PP bore no costs here since they provided no oversight, a la the stemexpress example below.


    Additionally, you ignored my request for support, so Challenge to support a claim.

    Do you have any support that PP said what you imply? That when offered a payment higher than their stated cost they said, "we'll go back and look for additional costs?"


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    She was going to speak to other centers, not other clients.
    And?

    She is going to be speaking with other centers about what kind of reimbursement they can get for organs. The fact that she is talking to, essentially her sales staff, rather than directly customers doesn't affect whether or not it is profit seeking.

    If PP were only seeking to reimburse their costs, it wouldn't matter if other centers were getting more because they could only be getting more by having higher costs.

    Thus the only explanation for why it would be relevant to see if other centers were getting more per organ is if the actor here is profit seeking.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Let's defund StemExpress.
    An odd statement given that we don't fund StemExpress.

    But, more importantly, this would seem to indicate that you don't have a defense against this charge.

    OK, given that PP was negligent in its oversight of a technician that performed procedures in their clinic. And given that such procedures violated the law, what should PP's punishment be?






    You also seem to be ceding the argument that they were charging per body part obtained. Is that correct?





    You also didn't respond to this request for support, so Challenge to support a claim.

    Can you support that retroactive cost estimation based upon sales price is legal for non-profits? (hint: it isn't) or permissible under the law cited?

    Second, can you support that the acceptance of the additional payment was at all conditioned on the justification by higher costs in the dialogue quoted? Please be specific.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  2. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    An odd statement given that we don't fund StemExpress.

    But, more importantly, this would seem to indicate that you don't have a defense against this charge.

    OK, given that PP was negligent in its oversight of a technician that performed procedures in their clinic. And given that such procedures violated the law, what should PP's punishment be?
    You'd have to support that PP was indeed negligent and therefore culpable in any way. Just because a bank gets robbed, doesn't mean the manager and tellers were negligent. Challenge to support a claim.

    I have no response because no charge has been made, nevermind supported in any way.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  3. #43
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You'd have to support that PP was indeed negligent and therefore culpable in any way. Just because a bank gets robbed, doesn't mean the manager and tellers were negligent. Challenge to support a claim.
    P1) Planned Parenthood is the clinic in which the procedures were performed.

    P2) Planned Parenthood, as the hosting clinic had a duty of care to ensure that practioners within its operation followed ethical and legal requirements.

    P3) Patients (whose right to consent here was violated) were Planned Parenthood's not Stem Express'.

    P4) Negligence is defined as failure to conduct the actions a reasonable practitioner of that skill set would have performed.

    P5) Medical facilities that allow independent contractors to operate on premise have a legal requirement to oversee and monitor those contractors for legal and ethical compliance.

    C) Planned Parenthood had a duty of care for the patient (2, 3), and a legal responsibility to ensure actors under its auspices did not violate legal or ethical guidelines (5,2). Ensuring that tissue being removed was consented to is a reasonable action for a medical professional (5) and failure to do so constitutes negligence (4).



    Objections based on a lack of lawsuits are insufficient to overcome the above argument. Not only have those patients who would have standing not been informed that their rights were violated (and hence cannot be expected to have already sued), but lawsuits are not the determining factor on whether an action was illegal. A non-prosecuted theft is still a theft.






    Now with the challenge out of the way, you need to respond to the challenges I issued before yours or retract the associated claims.


    A) Can you support that is what she said? IE that her comments were about changing their standard approach for all abortions?


    B) Can you support that changing standard procedures for the purpose of obtaining additional body parts is within the scope of the law?


    Challenge to support a claim.

    ___


    Additionally, you ignored my request for support, so
    Challenge to support a claim.


    Do you have any support that PP said what you imply? That when offered a payment higher than their stated cost they said, "we'll go back and look for additional costs?"

    ___


    You also seem to be ceding the argument that they were charging per body part obtained. Is that correct?

    ___


    You also didn't respond to this request for support, so Challenge to support a claim.


    Can you support that retroactive cost estimation based upon sales price is legal for non-profits? (hint: it isn't) or permissible under the law cited?

    Second, can you support that the acceptance of the additional payment was at all conditioned on the justification by higher costs in the dialogue quoted? Please be specific.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #44
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    P1) Planned Parenthood is the clinic in which the procedures were performed.

    P2) Planned Parenthood, as the hosting clinic had a duty of care to ensure that practioners within its operation followed ethical and legal requirements.

    P3) Patients (whose right to consent here was violated) were Planned Parenthood's not Stem Express'.

    P4) Negligence is defined as failure to conduct the actions a reasonable practitioner of that skill set would have performed.

    P5) Medical facilities that allow independent contractors to operate on premise have a legal requirement to oversee and monitor those contractors for legal and ethical compliance.

    C) Planned Parenthood had a duty of care for the patient (2, 3), and a legal responsibility to ensure actors under its auspices did not violate legal or ethical guidelines (5,2). Ensuring that tissue being removed was consented to is a reasonable action for a medical professional (5) and failure to do so constitutes negligence (4).



    Objections based on a lack of lawsuits are insufficient to overcome the above argument. Not only have those patients who would have standing not been informed that their rights were violated (and hence cannot be expected to have already sued), but lawsuits are not the determining factor on whether an action was illegal. A non-prosecuted theft is still a theft.
    I've actually decided to only answer one question at a time from now on.

    Where's your support for P4? and for P5 for that matter.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  5. #45
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I've actually decided to only answer one question at a time from now on.

    Where's your support for P4? and for P5 for that matter.
    You are free to do that, but that doesn't mean you can simply ignore challenges.

    Here are the current challenges laid against you. You can feel free to pick one and support/retract it and then we'll move to the next one.


    A) Can you support that is what she said? IE that her comments were about changing their standard approach for all abortions?


    B) Can you support that changing standard procedures for the purpose of obtaining additional body parts is within the scope of the law?


    Challenge to support a claim.

    ___


    Additionally, you ignored my request for support, so
    Challenge to support a claim.


    Do you have any support that PP said what you imply? That when offered a payment higher than their stated cost they said, "we'll go back and look for additional costs?"

    ___


    You also seem to be ceding the argument that they were charging per body part obtained. Is that correct?

    ___


    You also didn't respond to this request for support, so Challenge to support a claim.


    Can you support that retroactive cost estimation based upon sales price is legal for non-profits? (hint: it isn't) or permissible under the law cited?

    Second, can you support that the acceptance of the additional payment was at all conditioned on the justification by higher costs in the dialogue quoted? Please be specific.



    My support for P4 and P5 are linked in the statements themselves.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You are free to do that, but that doesn't mean you can simply ignore challenges.

    Here are the current challenges laid against you. You can feel free to pick one and support/retract it and then we'll move to the next one.

    [indent]
    A) Can you support that is what she said? IE that her comments were about changing their standard approach for all abortions?

    FARRELL: And we bake that into our contract, and our protocol, that we follow this. And we deviate from our standard in order to do that. So, you know, we can do it in a way that we're still verifying that everything is there for the safety of the patient, but then we maintain the integrity of that sample. So yeah, that's definitely something we can do. So as far as, this is our standard process, telling you then we can get creative about when and where and under what conditions can we interject something that is specific to the tissue needs.http://mediamatters.org/research/201...o-attem/204766
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  7. #47
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    FARRELL: And we bake that into our contract, and our protocol, that we follow this....
    Right, PP establishes a contract with the organ procurer covering abortions where they are procuring organs right? Certainly, that doesn't mean they "bake into the contract" that they will change procedures on all abortions right?


    Or when you said SOPs were you only referring to procedures in which they are taking tissue?


    It would seem, on this challenge that you mean either:


    a) They change their procedures for all patients. In which case you haven't supported the claim since your quote is only referring to abortions under which organs are harvested.


    OR


    b) They change their procedures just for those cases where organs are being harvested. In which case I would argue you haven't really supported the claim well given that the quote references changing the procedure based on what type (liver vs neural) of tissue is being asked for.



    Which is it? A or B?

    If A, please support the claim that this is for all abortions.

    If B, please support that altering the procedure for abortions where organs are to be harvested falls within the scope of the law. IE:


    Challenge to support a claim.

    B) Can you support that changing standard procedures for the purpose of obtaining additional body parts is within the scope of the law?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  8. #48
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Right, PP establishes a contract with the organ procurer covering abortions where they are procuring organs right? Certainly, that doesn't mean they "bake into the contract" that they will change procedures on all abortions right?


    Or when you said SOPs were you only referring to procedures in which they are taking tissue?


    It would seem, on this challenge that you mean either:


    a) They change their procedures for all patients. In which case you haven't supported the claim since your quote is only referring to abortions under which organs are harvested.


    OR


    b) They change their procedures just for those cases where organs are being harvested. In which case I would argue you haven't really supported the claim well given that the quote references changing the procedure based on what type (liver vs neural) of tissue is being asked for.



    Which is it? A or B?

    If A, please support the claim that this is for all abortions.

    If B, please support that altering the procedure for abortions where organs are to be harvested falls within the scope of the law. IE:


    Challenge to support a claim.

    B) Can you support that changing standard procedures for the purpose of obtaining additional body parts is within the scope of the law?
    According to her it does as long as "this is our standard process". They employ a waiver to make sure there is informed consent. However, it's hard to make a legal judgement from a small excerpt of an illegally made wire tap.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  9. #49
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    According to her it does as long as "this is our standard process". They employ a waiver to make sure there is informed consent.
    According to whom? The PP person? Media Matters?

    And where do they say this "is our standard process?"

    You didn't answer the question above or meet the challenge.


    Do you mean A or B?


    a) They change their procedures for all patients. In which case you haven't supported the claim since your quote is only referring to abortions under which organs are harvested.


    OR


    b) They change their procedures just for those cases where organs are being harvested. In which case I would argue you haven't really supported the claim well given that the quote references changing the procedure based on what type (liver vs neural) of tissue is being asked for.


    If A, please support the claim that this is for all abortions.

    If B, please support that altering the procedure for abortions where organs are to be harvested falls within the scope of the law. IE:


    Challenge to support a claim.

    B) Can you support that changing standard procedures for the purpose of obtaining additional body parts is within the scope of the law?



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    However, it's hard to make a legal judgement from a small excerpt of an illegally made wire tap.

    Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract that his recording was illegal.

    Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract that this recording was a wire tap.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. #50
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract that his recording was illegal.

    Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract that this recording was a wire tap.
    "“California is an all party consent state – meaning a person can be liable for invasion of privacy if they record without the consent of all the parties to a confidential communication,” Dave Heller, deputy director of the Media Law Resource Center, wrote in an email. ”So, to have a claim, the target of a hidden camera sting must have had a reasonable expectation that their conversation would be private and not, for example, be overheard or recorded in a public setting.” But, he added, “In California, claims over hidden camera filming typically involve disputed issues of fact between both sides. In that case, the matter could go to a jury to decide.”

    Such a jury would have to determine whether the restaurant counts as a public place or not, and whether this was a conversation the Planned Parenthood official expected would be disclosed to others. “The anti-abortion group may claim that they were filming in a public place, where others could hear the conversation, and perhaps also told the Planned Parenthood official that the conversation would be disclosed to others. In that sense, the group can argue that they complied with the law,” Heller said.

    RELATED: Planned Parenthood video controversy reaches Washington

    Chris Jay Hoofnagle, director of Information Privacy Programs at the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, wrote in an email, “On wiretapping, ‘consent’ has to be actual (as in, may I record this) or implied from the circumstances (as in situations where the speaker can clearly see the recording device). Thus, if the doctor claims no knowledge of the recording, there probably is a problem.”"http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/does-the-...recording-laws
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. #51
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    ”So, to have a claim, the target of a hidden camera sting must have had a reasonable expectation that their conversation would be private and not, for example, be overheard or recorded in a public setting.”

    Ok, so this shows that they would have the legal ability to sue. Great. That doesn't show that it was illegal, only that it might be illegal.

    What you would need to do for this claim is, as Mr. Heller says, show that a restaurant is not a public place under California law.

    Do you have any such defense?





    Further, because there is a long list of challenges you have yet to respond to, I will periodically re-list them just to make it easier to review.



    According to whom? The PP person? Media Matters?

    And where do they say this "is our standard process?"

    You didn't answer the question above or meet the challenge.


    Do you mean A or B?


    a) They change their procedures for all patients. In which case you haven't supported the claim since your quote is only referring to abortions under which organs are harvested.


    OR


    b) They change their procedures just for those cases where organs are being harvested. In which case I would argue you haven't really supported the claim well given that the quote references changing the procedure based on what type (liver vs neural) of tissue is being asked for.


    If A, please support the claim that this is for all abortions.

    If B, please support that altering the procedure for abortions where organs are to be harvested falls within the scope of the law. IE:


    Challenge to support a claim.

    B) Can you support that changing standard procedures for the purpose of obtaining additional body parts is within the scope of the law?





    Additionally, you ignored my request for support, so
    Challenge to support a claim.


    Do you have any support that PP said what you imply? That when offered a payment higher than their stated cost they said, "we'll go back and look for additional costs?"

    ___


    You also seem to be ceding the argument that they were charging per body part obtained. Is that correct?

    ___


    You also didn't respond to this request for support, so Challenge to support a claim.


    Can you support that retroactive cost estimation based upon sales price is legal for non-profits? (hint: it isn't) or permissible under the law cited?

    Second, can you support that the acceptance of the additional payment was at all conditioned on the justification by higher costs in the dialogue quoted? Please be specific.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. #52
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, so this shows that they would have the legal ability to sue. Great. That doesn't show that it was illegal, only that it might be illegal.

    What you would need to do for this claim is, as Mr. Heller says, show that a restaurant is not a public place under California law.

    Do you have any such defense?
    I'm sure that was intended by the perpetrators and would be part of their defense. Was the conversation intended to be private would be the question. I'd say yes since the recording mechanisms had to be of high grade and hidden. Also, true the restaurant might be public accessible space but it certainly is restricted. As are the seating arrangements. I can't just go and sit at your table and start chomping bread can I? Can I even just walk in the door and sit down? Do I need a reservation or is it like McDonalds where I can just walk in and sit down...heck, not even buy or intend to buy anything.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  13. #53
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Was the conversation intended to be private would be the question.
    It's a question, it just isn't a meaningful or legally relevant question. The question, as standard in both your link and mine set by the California Legislature is, "does the conversation occur in a place where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy and of not being overheard?"

    Since this is your claim, you would need to support that they had a reasonable expectation of not being overheard in a restaurant. Please support or retract that claim.


    Additionally, you still need to support or retract the other claims at issue in this thread.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. #54
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It's a question, it just isn't a meaningful or legally relevant question. The question, as standard in both your link and mine set by the California Legislature is, "does the conversation occur in a place where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy and of not being overheard?"

    Since this is your claim, you would need to support that they had a reasonable expectation of not being overheard in a restaurant. Please support or retract that claim.


    Additionally, you still need to support or retract the other claims at issue in this thread.
    Like my support said that would be the defense, I don't need to support that.

    "Such a jury would have to determine whether the restaurant counts as a public place or not, and whether this was a conversation the Planned Parenthood official expected would be disclosed to others." Post 50

    The restaurant is a place of public accommodation, true, but like I said to what degree? They were also at a private table. Grand Central is a public place also, do I have no expectation of privacy in a phone booth...even one of those open ones?

    I assume we agree that she wasn't told the conversation was being recorded and that it was to be shared, right?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  15. #55
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It's a question, it just isn't a meaningful or legally relevant question. The question, as standard in both your link and mine set by the California Legislature is, "does the conversation occur in a place where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy and of not being overheard?"

    Since this is your claim, you would need to support that they had a reasonable expectation of not being overheard in a restaurant. Please support or retract that claim.


    Additionally, you still need to support or retract the other claims at issue in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Like my support said that would be the defense, I don't need to support that.
    This is incorrect. You said it violated the law. Therefore it is incumbent upon you to show that it did. The standard in the law is that the plaintiff must show that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

    In order for you to have supported your claim, you’ll need to meet the minimum criteria defined in the law.





    Additional claims still unsupported:

    According to whom? The PP person? Media Matters?

    And where do they say this "is our standard process?"

    You didn't answer the question above or meet the challenge.


    Do you mean A or B?


    a) They change their procedures for all patients. In which case you haven't supported the claim since your quote is only referring to abortions under which organs are harvested.


    OR


    b) They change their procedures just for those cases where organs are being harvested. In which case I would argue you haven't really supported the claim well given that the quote references changing the procedure based on what type (liver vs neural) of tissue is being asked for.


    If A, please support the claim that this is for all abortions.

    If B, please support that altering the procedure for abortions where organs are to be harvested falls within the scope of the law. IE:


    Challenge to support a claim.

    B) Can you support that changing standard procedures for the purpose of obtaining additional body parts is within the scope of the law?





    Additionally, you ignored my request for support, so
    Challenge to support a claim.


    Do you have any support that PP said what you imply? That when offered a payment higher than their stated cost they said, "we'll go back and look for additional costs?"

    ___


    You also seem to be ceding the argument that they were charging per body part obtained. Is that correct?

    ___


    You also didn't respond to this request for support, so Challenge to support a claim.


    Can you support that retroactive cost estimation based upon sales price is legal for non-profits? (hint: it isn't) or permissible under the law cited?

    Second, can you support that the acceptance of the additional payment was at all conditioned on the justification by higher costs in the dialogue quoted? Please be specific.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  16. #56
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is incorrect. You said it violated the law. Therefore it is incumbent upon you to show that it did. The standard in the law is that the plaintiff must show that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

    In order for you to have supported your claim, you’ll need to meet the minimum criteria defined in the law.
    I'd say a private table at a nice restaurant supports that on top of the agreed to facts that it was secretly recorded (with high tech gear) and that the conversation was not intended to be disclosed (by the victim).
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  17. #57
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I'd say a private table at a nice restaurant supports that

    How? What legal definition or case law are you using to say that it is a “private table?” You can literally see other people during the conversation after all. So what standard are you measuring “private” against here and where does that standard fit in the law?





    Side note, I’m not sure it is defensible to say a cheesecake factory is a nice restaurant.






    Are there any other of your unsupported claims that you would like to defend at this time?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  18. #58
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Side note, I’m not sure it is defensible to say a cheesecake factory is a nice restaurant.
    Compared with, say McDonald's, it would be.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  19. #59
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    How? What legal definition or case law are you using to say that it is a “private table?” You can literally see other people during the conversation after all. So what standard are you measuring “private” against here and where does that standard fit in the law?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Capture.PNG 
Views:	10 
Size:	34.7 KB 
ID:	3767

    https://books.google.com/books?id=nQ...aurant&f=false

    The defendant felt they needed to use high tech (I think they said "police grade") equipment and to keep it hidden. That's certainly not the "unaided ear".
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  20. #60
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    How? What legal definition or case law are you using to say that it is a “private table?” You can literally see other people during the conversation after all. So what standard are you measuring “private” against here and where does that standard fit in the law?
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    The defendant felt they needed to use high tech (I think they said "police grade") equipment and to keep it hidden. That's certainly not the "unaided ear".
    Cowboy, thank you for offering support for this claim.

    Now, with that said, your support actually undermines your claim. The defendant didn’t use the “police grade” gear to hear the conversation. They used the equipment (which was police grade because it was concealable, not because it amplified sound presumably) to record the conversation.

    On the tape the defendant clearly could be seen to be responding to the plaintiff’s statements despite only using the unaided ear, correct?

    So given that, it would seem that the “unaided ear” actually was used here and that the conversation was perfectly understandable to the unaided ear, thus no expectation of privacy could be warranted, according to your source.




    Now with that claim dismissed, can you support any of your other claims in this thread?

    According to whom? The PP person? Media Matters?

    And where do they say this "is our standard process?"

    You didn't answer the question above or meet the challenge.


    Do you mean A or B?


    a) They change their procedures for all patients. In which case you haven't supported the claim since your quote is only referring to abortions under which organs are harvested.


    OR


    b) They change their procedures just for those cases where organs are being harvested. In which case I would argue you haven't really supported the claim well given that the quote references changing the procedure based on what type (liver vs neural) of tissue is being asked for.


    If A, please support the claim that this is for all abortions.

    If B, please support that altering the procedure for abortions where organs are to be harvested falls within the scope of the law. IE:


    Challenge to support a claim.

    B) Can you support that changing standard procedures for the purpose of obtaining additional body parts is within the scope of the law?





    Additionally, you ignored my request for support, so
    Challenge to support a claim.


    Do you have any support that PP said what you imply? That when offered a payment higher than their stated cost they said, "we'll go back and look for additional costs?"

    ___


    You also seem to be ceding the argument that they were charging per body part obtained. Is that correct?

    ___


    You also didn't respond to this request for support, so Challenge to support a claim.


    Can you support that retroactive cost estimation based upon sales price is legal for non-profits? (hint: it isn't) or permissible under the law cited?

    Second, can you support that the acceptance of the additional payment was at all conditioned on the justification by higher costs in the dialogue quoted? Please be specific.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 33
    Last Post: June 10th, 2010, 10:23 AM
  2. Truly Planned Parenthood
    By PallidaMors in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: May 18th, 2006, 02:50 AM
  3. Planned Parenthood cartoon
    By nanderson in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: August 10th, 2005, 06:01 PM
  4. Murder or Tissue Issue?
    By Dionysus in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: April 19th, 2005, 11:54 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •