We Finance Barbarism

[jpx7]

Nothing is being bridged here. This isn't about ideological gaps.

Well "bridges [the] divide" might not have been the best phrase, as I meant only that no one "side" of this discussion is any more guilty of "yammering" than any other.

However, this is about ideological gaps, as much as you want to skirt that fact in favor of this monotone yammering about "profitability". Where one stood on Planned Parenthood before this revelation largely governs what one wants done about it. I don't think anyone who supports the overall mission and existence of Planned Parenthood would object to reforms with regards to how the organization deals with fetal tissues; meanwhile, those who reject the overall mission and decry the existence of Planned Parenthood do not seem as if they will be satisfied with any "reform" that isn't the total federal de-funding and effective obliteration of Planned Parenthood.

A start would be focusing on discussing the profitability aspect of the equation, which hasn't been addressed, aside from a cursory, 'Well everybody does it!'

Which a) isn't true and b) is irrelevant.

Planned Parenthood claims what is being construed as "profit" is in fact cost-recovery. Whether one is inclined to believe that or not, it's clear they (a) need to be much more open in their accounting and (b) should also probably fashion out some procedures to donate (with patient consent) these fetal tissues in a manner that doesn't require their receiving any monies in exchange (whether it's truly for "cost-recovery," or "profit," or fuel for a Satanic bonfire). The latter is paramount especially because—as I said in the above post—Planned Parenthood is an institution that has to be very careful to avoid giving their critics any more ammunition, for better or worse, deserved or not, irrespective of the full explanation.

If y'all want to bitch on about liberal v. conservative, pro-life/pro-choice then, please, have at it -- but understand that it has little to do with the actual issue at play no matter how desperately you attempt to skirt it and cast worthless, typical, and yes, brainwashed, aspersions.

Quite the holier-than-thou tone from you. Since you're responding to me, please tell me where I've "cast worthless, typical, and yes, brainwashed, aspersions". And while you're at it, you might deign to honor us with an elaboration of "the actual issue at play," beyond your abiding suspicion that the monies exchanged for fetal tissues have made a non-profit organization—or some employees or divisions of it—potentially, to some degree, profit-generating.

[Hawk]

Well "bridges [the] divide" might not have been the best phrase, as I meant only that no one "side" of this discussion is any more guilty of "yammering" than any other.

However, this is about ideological gaps, as much as you want to skirt that fact in favor of this monotone yammering about "profitability". Where one stood on Planned Parenthood before this revelation largely governs what one wants done about it. I don't think anyone who supports the overall mission and existence of Planned Parenthood would object to reforms with regards to how the organization deals with fetal tissues; meanwhile, those who reject the overall mission and decry the existence of Planned Parenthood do not seem as if they will be satisfied with any "reform" that isn't the total federal de-funding and effective obliteration of Planned Parenthood.



Planned Parenthood claims what is being construed as "profit" is in fact cost-recovery. Whether one is inclined to believe that or not, it's clear they (a) need to be much more open in their accounting and (b) should also probably fashion out some procedures to donate (with patient consent) these fetal tissues in a manner that doesn't require their receiving any monies in exchange (whether it's truly for "cost-recovery," or "profit," or fuel for a Satanic bonfire). The latter is paramount especially because—as I said in the above post—Planned Parenthood is an institution that has to be very careful to avoid giving their critics any more ammunition, for better or worse, deserved or not, irrespective of the full explanation.



Quite the holier-than-thou tone from you. Since you're responding to me, please tell me where I've "cast worthless, typical, and yes, brainwashed, aspersions". And while you're at it, you might deign to honor us with an elaboration of "the actual issue at play," beyond your abiding suspicion that the monies exchanged for fetal tissues have made a non-profit organization—or some employees or divisions of it—potentially, to some degree, profit-generating.

I disagree. You've guided this thread in a partisan fashion since your original post, and despite your claims about preexisting belief systems, I think that's just a petty game (speaking of easy ways out).

Planned Parenthood is nothing more than a cause celebre for liberals and it really is hilarious to watch them line up and take a beating for it simply because they believe that somehow it generally aligns with their principals.

Keep on fighting that good fight

[jpx7]

I disagree. You've guided this thread in a partisan fashion since your original post, and despite your claims about preexisting belief systems, I think that's just a petty game (speaking of easy ways out).

Planned Parenthood is nothing more than a cause celebre for liberals and it really is hilarious to watch them line up and take a beating for it simply because they believe that somehow it generally aligns with their principals.

Keep on fighting that good fight

So you're essentially not responding to the content of my post, nor to any of the specific questions I've posed to you, nor are you making any substantive points otherwise? It'd be nice if you actually engaged with the topic a bit more, instead of sighing, condescending, and claiming everybody else is avoiding "the actual issue at play" while yourself refusing to elucidate said issue.

Keep on taking pointless, spurious pot-shots, I guess—though I personally think you're a better poster than that.

[Hawk]

So you're essentially not responding to the content of my post, nor to any of the specific questions I've posed to you, nor are you making any substantive points otherwise? It'd be nice if you actually engaged with the topic a bit more, instead of sighing, condescending, and claiming everybody else is avoiding "the actual issue at play" while yourself refusing to elucidate said issue.

Keep on taking pointless, spurious pot-shots, I guess—though I personally think you're a better poster than that.

I'm jetlagged, in Japan, and feel like I made my point pages ago (that was never addressed, and still hasn't been) so don't feel like rehashing it all over again.

I'll also add that I feel like we're well past the point of having any sort of meaningful discourse on the subject now that partisan hackery has been intentionally injected along with all the usual linkage and memes. It's just droll at this stage.

[jpx7]

I'm jetlagged, in Japan, and feel like I made my point pages ago (that was never addressed, and still hasn't been) so don't feel like rehashing it all over again.

Well I've got the upper-hand in that regard, as I'm (a) on MST, so it's still early-evening; (b) well-rested, thanks an off-day from work; and (c) looking for distractions from this book of short-stories I'm supposed to get through, written by an author I don't particularly like (Junot Díaz), as opposed to being justifiably occupied by adventuring in the Orient.

---

Meanwhile, you say you've articulated your argument, but I re-read this entire thread, and the best I could find was the claim that "the monetized elements of the practice deserve stigmatization". That's a fair enough sentiment, but—even if I might be skeptical as to the motivations of many commenters doing that stigmatization (and I mean the outside world; I'll take posters in this thread at their word)—that's essentially the only point you've advanced.

You haven't said word one about what'd you'd like to see done after or beyond "stigmatization [of] the monetized elements of the practice". At least [MENTION=2]weso1[/MENTION] is willing to talk reforms, even if he personally (for more general moral reasons, I take it) wants to see Planned Parenthood ultimately federally defunded; and at least [MENTION=128]sturg33[/MENTION] reiterated the obvious, that he hasn't supported federal funding for Planned Parenthood, doesn't now, and never will, because that's not how he sees federal government ideally operating.

I'll also add that I feel like we're well past the point of having any sort of meaningful discourse on the subject now that partisan hackery has been intentionally injected along with all the usual linkage and memes. It's just droll at this stage.

Where is this "partisan hackery" ruining the thread? And—since I'll assume, based on your recent comments, that you allege I'm the culpable party—where did I do it?

---

I genuinely like you as a poster, but you've taken an oddly petulant, combative, yet otherwise shallow-seeming posture in this thread—maligning most everybody else, and parading around this pretense that you're the only one really seeing through all the bull**** and talking about this topic on the real. (Indeed, you say you can't stand John Stewart because of his smarm, but you've been smarmy as hell in this thread.) And when I've asked what you want out of this discussion, you've answered "less yammering"; but, besides that desire, all I can conjure that you want is "more stigmatizing," which—deserved or not (and let's say deserved)—seems a pretty hollow end-game.

Then come these escalating digs at my "partisan pettiness," when I only entered this thread to voice a very specific personal skepticism (namely, a skepticism that the outraged included many folks who weren't already inalienably critical of Planned Parenthood's existence), and only stayed to elaborate (after being accused otherwise) that I did, in fact, have some misgivings about Planned Parenthood's handling of fetal tissues, and moreover thought that there were obvious organizational changes to be made (in spite of the organization's official protestations that the money is cost-recovery, and that the patients had been consulted about / had approved the "donations").

So I ask again—and feel free to only answer when you have the spare time and sufficient rest—where is this "partisan hackery" you've bemoaned the past several posts? Am I guilty of it merely because I support the existence and work of Planned Parenthood (which, I assure your, is not a "liberal cause célèbre" for me, at least, just an institution whose core mission I thoroughly support)? And is there a way for someone to be a valid discursive participant on this topic, in your eyes, outside of blanket concurrence with your position?

Because, hell, I explicitly "thanked" this post of yours, since I agreed ideological pot-shots weren't useful here; yet you seem to think I'm primarily responsible from taking this thread from "all the usual linkage and memes" to an irredeemable, beyond-the-pale nether-region absent any "meaningful discourse" and "well past the point" of utility.