The Rubella and Polio vaccines for starters..

 

Well that's recent.


 

And I'm pretty sure that Jonas Salk didn't need fetal organs to develop the polio vaccine, especially since it was developed before abortion became legal (as was the Sabin vaccine, which is no longer used in the US).

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Well that's recent.


 

And I'm pretty sure that Jonas Salk didn't need fetal organs to develop the polio vaccine, especially since it was developed before abortion became legal (as was the Sabin vaccine, which is no longer used in the US).

http://www.usnews.com/news/science/news/...al-studies

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.usnews.com/news/science/news/articles/2015/07/29/human-fetal-tissue-long-used-for-variety-of-medical-studies'>http://www.usnews.com/news/science/news/articles/2015/07/29/human-fetal-tissue-long-used-for-variety-of-medical-studies</a>

Game, set, match.

---

http://www.usnews.com/news/science/news/...al-studies

 

This says differently:


 

http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content...evelopment

 

 

 

In total only two fetuses, both obtained from abortions done by maternal choice, have given rise to cell strains used in vaccine development. Neither abortion was performed for the purpose of vaccine development.

 

And both of these cell strains were obtained long ago.


 

 

 

Several vaccines currently available in the United States were developed using animal cell lines, primarily using cells from African green monkeys. These include vaccines against Japanese encephalitis, rotavirus, polio, and smallpox. Of these, only rotavirus and polio vaccines are routinely given. 

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Game, set, match.

 

I lobbed it back. And the researched named in that article was not Jonas Salk.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I admit that I'm no expert when it comes to accounting. But I have seen cases where perfectly legal accounting tricks have covered up losses (and profits). So just because there's no illegal accounting being found does not mean that government funding does not facilitate abortions. But even if that's true, government funding is going to a business that is performing abhorrent activities. Whether or not the informed left accepts this, a large majority of the US doesn't.


But to give you an example, how are the facilities funded? Presumably PP performs abortions in the same building that does (say) breast exams. Some of the federal funds go to the utilities and upkeep of the PP buildings. Can you really expect that PP exactly divvies up the sources of funding going to facility expenses so that no federal funds slip into the abortion side of the business?

So, in other words, you don't have any facts to substantiate you claim against pp.


You have anecdotal information about an unrelated company, and extrapolation. You created a red herring regarding property expense to indirectly and incorrectly allocate a business expense fur overhead into abortion expense. Sorry, but you are still incorrect.


Again, you are creating a false premise to rationalize a false accusation based on your political beliefs.


Again, I really enjoy debating you. You're clearly a very intelligent person. You don't have a leg to stand on in this particular circumstance.

---

So, in other words, you don't have any facts to substantiate you claim against pp.


You have anecdotal information about an unrelated company, and extrapolation. You created a red herring regarding property expense to indirectly and incorrectly allocate a business expense fur overhead into abortion expense. Sorry, but you are still incorrect.


Again, you are creating a false premise to rationalize a false accusation based on your political beliefs.


Again, I really enjoy debating you. You're clearly a very intelligent person. You don't have a leg to stand on in this particular circumstance.

 

1. I'm always willing to learn. So tell me how federal dollars spent on PP infrastructure does not facilitate abortions.


 

2. You still haven't addressed the meat of the argument, that giving money to an entity that performs abhorrent acts is a problem even if the money doesn't directly go to support those acts.


 

EDIT: 3. Since neither of us have access to PP's accounting records, your assumption of 'nothing to see here' is just as much of a leap of faith as my 'everybody lies in expense reports' is.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I lobbed it back. And the researched named in that article was not Jonas Salk.

 

Add to that that the Nobel award to the researchers mentioned in the article says nothing about fetal tissue. The award for for growing the polio virus in "various types of tissue." And these guys didn't create the vaccine.


 

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/m...ates/1954/

 

The USA article (AP sourced) was dated July 29, 2015. The AP writer really stretched the truth to support PP. No surprise, the press is no longer objective.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

1. I'm always willing to learn. So tell me how federal dollars spent on PP infrastructure does not facilitate abortions.


 

2. You still haven't addressed the meat of the argument, that giving money to an entity that performs abhorrent acts is a problem even if the money doesn't directly go to support those acts.


 

EDIT: 3. Since neither of us have access to PP's accounting records, your assumption of 'nothing to see here' is just as much of a leap of faith as my 'everybody lies in expense reports' is.

That's entirely a matter of opinion. Approaching the anti side with that as the reasoning does not ring with the pro crowd. 

---

That's entirely a matter of opinion. Approaching the anti side with that as the reasoning does not ring with the pro crowd. 

 

I agree. But I believe the side that wants other people's money is the side that shoulders the burden of proof.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Maybe I'm missing the key point here. I'm admittedly tired. What here is illegal?

 

To quote jj82284 form an earlier post.

 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">It is illegal to alter an abortion procedure to obtain specimens.  

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">It is illegal to inform the abortion staff that the intention is to harvest specimens.  

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">And it is illegal to sell specimens for profit.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

The video evidence points to the possibility that these things are either going on, or that those people that run PP are open to doing those things.

 

Abortions?  LOL.  Faux outrage at it's best... 

 

Seriously, can someone explain what I need to be mad at?  I'm in kind of a bad mood anyways and need a target for my next outburst at work...

 

Nobody is pushing to make abortion illegal (yet).  I have my own personal feeling about the subject that I've posted numerous times.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I agree. But I believe the side that wants other people's money is the side that shoulders the burden of proof.

Shouldn't the burden be on the accusers?

 

Example. Malabar, I accuse you of running an underground clown smuggling ring directly through Canada through funds you made at your business selling doilies. Since you are the one making money off those dastardly acts must you prove this is not the case? It's not reasonable for you to prove anything. The onus is on me to prove your evil clown smuggling ways. 

---

To quote jj82284 form an earlier post.

 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">It is illegal to alter an abortion procedure to obtain specimens.  

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">It is illegal to inform the abortion staff that the intention is to harvest specimens.  

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">And it is illegal to sell specimens for profit.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

The video evidence points to the possibility that these things are either going on, or that those people that run PP are open to doing those things.

 

 

Nobody is pushing to make abortion illegal (yet).  I have my own personal feeling about the subject that I've posted numerous times.

Have citations been posted for those? 

---

I admit that I'm no expert when it comes to accounting. But I have seen cases where perfectly legal accounting tricks have covered up losses (and profits). So just because there's no illegal accounting being found does not mean that government funding does not facilitate abortions. But even if that's true, government funding is going to a business that is performing abhorrent activities. Whether or not the informed left accepts this, a large majority of the US doesn't.


 

But to give you an example, how are the facilities funded? Presumably PP performs abortions in the same building that does (say) breast exams. Some of the federal funds go to the utilities and upkeep of the PP buildings. Can you really expect that PP exactly divvies up the sources of funding going to facility expenses so that no federal funds slip into the abortion side of the business?

 

With a good accountant you can cover up a lot. With a GREAT accountant you won't ever go to jail for it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Have citations been posted for those? 

 

The original videos as released to the media highlights those points.  The first attack is to say that the videos are "highly edited", however, I posted links to the full videos and transcripts.  The answers are there for anyone that really wants to know the truth.

 

I think that the real outrage is the failure of traditional media to investigate the claims as well as the failure of the Justice Department to investigate.  If they would at least do that, then the real answer would come out regarding if there is anything legal/illegal happening within PP.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I agree. But I believe the side that wants other people's money is the side that shoulders the burden of proof.

 

The video evidence points to the possibility that these things are either going on, or that those people that run PP are open to doing those things.

 

Nobody is pushing to make abortion illegal (yet).  I have my own personal feeling about the subject that I've posted numerous times.

There's no proof that it's happening. I mean, that's really what it comes down to. I'm theoretically open to the idea of insider trading, chowing down on THC-laced candy or going through an airport TSA checkpoint naked. Doesn't mean I've actually done any of it (ok, I have done one of the things on that list), and my musings on the possibility of doing it is not evidence enough for someone to launch a public smear campaign against me over it.

 

There have been many efforts to make abortion illegal. Roe v. Wade pretty much whizzed on all of them, and that verdict was arrived at 40-ish years ago. Historically speaking, the Supreme Court is generally unwilling to revisit decisions that have been on the books that long. The concept is called "settled law".

 

The original videos as released to the media highlights those points.  The first attack is to say that the videos are "highly edited", however, I posted links to the full videos and transcripts.  The answers are there for anyone that really wants to know the truth.

I've only bothered to watch one unedited video, and have only skimmed the transcripts, but to me it still looks like some folks with an agenda lied their way into a meeting then sat around asking loaded questions that, if this were a criminal investigation, would have been tossed out as entrapment.

---

Shouldn't the burden be on the accusers?

 

Example. Malabar, I accuse you of running an underground clown smuggling ring directly through Canada through funds you made at your business selling doilies. Since you are the one making money off those dastardly acts must you prove this is not the case? It's not reasonable for you to prove anything. The onus is on me to prove your evil clown smuggling ways. 

 

Where in that example am I taking other people's money by force?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Where in that example am I taking other people's money by force?

Who is taking who's money by force exactly?

---

Who is taking who's money by force exactly?

 

The government is taking citizen's money by force and is giving some of it to PP.


 

(admittedly nowadays the Feds just magically create some of the money they spend, but much of it still is taken from citizens)


 

EDIT: Now Anchorman is going to claim that PP only gets the magically created money, and that none of the money taken by force goes to PP.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The government is taking citizen's money by force and is giving some of it to PP.


 

(admittedly nowadays the Feds just magically create some of the money they spend, but much of it still is taken from citizens)


 

EDIT: Now Anchorman is going to claim that PP only gets the magically created money, and that none of the money taken by force goes to PP.

And PP claims none of the money is used for abortions as they have always claimed. As far as I can tell there is nothing at all to refute that. The onus is on the accusers. 

---