How to Demagogue an Issue: Planned Parenthood in the Cross-hairs | Raucous Caucus | Tom Cushing | |

Local Blogs

Raucous Caucus

By Tom Cushing

E-mail Tom Cushing

About this blog: The Raucous Caucus shares the southpaw perspectives of this Boomer on the state of the nation, the world, and, sometimes, other stuff. I enjoy crafting it to keep current, and occasionally to rant on some issue I care about deeply...  (More)

View all posts from Tom Cushing

How to Demagogue an Issue: Planned Parenthood in the Cross-hairs

Uploaded: Aug 18, 2015

This blog follows-on Roz's recent epistle on Planned Parenthood, which developed a spirited following in the threads until she got tired of the associated nonsense (welcome, Roz, to my blog's world). I will assume that you already know how you feel about abortion, and nothing written here is intended to change those values-laden views (even if I my powers of persuasion were up to it, which they're not).

I am concerned, however, about how this issue gets demagogued, and the fact that candidates are relying-, passing- and counting-on voters to choose Not to inform themselves regarding actual factage. Please read on, if you're interested in proving 'em wrong.

Planned Parenthood (PP) has been a whipping-child of the Right for many years. Its Connecticut leader was the 'Griswold' plaintiff in the famous right-to-privacy case that overturned the state's ban on all contraception(!) in the 1960s. And then there's TX Senator Kyl's more recent ridiculous exaggeration that 90% of PP's services are abortions. Fact-checking demonstrated that the actual number is between 3% (services) and 10% (clients). If you don't care about that difference because 3% of a large number is too many, then perhaps you won't mind if I charge you 90% interest on your car loan, instead of 3%. Even the good Senator acknowledged his hyperbole, if unrepentantly.

A PP rep did do the GOP campaigns a huge favor ('phenomenal' even, in Trumpian terms) by casually and imprecisely discussing fetal tissue donation with someone they had not vouched-for as a potential buyer. The resulting, precisely-edited clandestine video made her sound like a callous Merchant of Spare Baby Parts. It takes some digging to actually understand the issues ? a Q&A format may help.

1 ? Does PP convey fetal tissue samples to researchers, for a price? Yes, $30-100/sample, apparently.

2 ? Doesn't that make them Merchants of Spare Baby Parts? No, as follows. The price is designed to be cost-recovery alone -- they are willing to do it, but not divert money from their other services in the process. The price reflects the extreme care needed to be taken to isolate and prepare the tissue samples. The range reflects the different costs associated with preservation of different samples. According to the President of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories (formerly of the National Cancer Institute's office of Biorepository and Biospecimen Research ? yes, both these organizations exist), those numbers are probably below average cost for a typical clinic (per

3 ? Do they get their patient's consent? Yes. PP only provides the samples with the specific informed consent of the patient, and in fewer than one-half their total cases. It's a reasoned and careful policy from their viewpoint, but unreasonably vulnerable -- without safeguards to prevent just the kind of attack that occurred.

4 ? Are these tissue transfers even legal? Yes. Since 1993, federal law pertaining to federally funded NIH research has allowed donation of fetal tissue from induced abortions. It requires that the conditions above be met. See Title 42 of the United States Code, the public health and welfare provisions.

5 ? What price do the researchers pay for such samples? The samples are further processed and specific cells isolated by providers. Per, "a vial containing five million frozen fetal liver CD133+ stem cells can cost more than $24,000."

6 ? Does anybody else do likewise? Yes, many general hospitals provide samples of a wide variety of tissues from their procedures and patients to various kinds of researchers. This includes fetal tissue from miscarriages.

7 ? What kinds of research, and since when? Per "According to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit focused on sexual and reproductive health, tissue from fetuses has been used since the 1930s for a variety of purposes. Perhaps most famously, the 1954 Nobel Prize in medicine was awarded to researchers who managed to grow polio vaccine in fetal kidney cell cultures."

Further, fetal cells were first used to create vaccines against measles, rubella, shingles and other diseases. "(H)owever, the use of stem cells for therapeutic and research purposes has taken a more central role than fetal tissue. As Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University, told Buzzfeed News, "'fetal cells are not a big deal in science anymore.'"

So, such work may be considered to be fruit of a poisonous tree, but it might also be acknowledged that millions of lives have been saved or restored as a direct result of these advances. It seems that nothing about this issue is easy.

8 ? Do any federal (taxpayer) funds contribute to any of this research? Yes. For example (per NYT), "The National Institutes of Health spent $76 million on research using fetal tissue in 2014 with grants to more than 50 universities, including Columbia, Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, Yale and the University of California in Berkeley, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco. It expects to spend the same amount in 2015 and 2016."

9 ? And, back to PP, how much government money does that organization get ? and does any of it underwrite abortions? In 2014, PP received $528 million -- all of it for the 90+% of its work unrelated to abortions. These include contraception, health screening and consultation, usually provided to low-income women and men under Title X and Medicaid. Does anybody seriously dispute that those services are useful and appropriate?

Per-and-since the so-called Hyde Amendment, first passed in 1976 and renewed annually since that time, no federal funds may go to any organization, including PP, for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. So no, the government money does not underwrite abortions.

o ? o -- o

Now, none of this actual information is susceptible to soundbite attack politics. Instead, we get an intramural recess tussle over who can capture the Most-pro-life flag. Lots of exclamation points, very little data, and conscious, conspicuous lies ("It's clearly illegal" says the retired neurosurgeon candidate who claims not to know much, but who ought to at least know that's patently false). And while they decry the use of fetal tissue, and seek to punish PP on utterly unrelated grounds, they ignore the ultimate absurdity that many of them must have voted to allow federal funding of research using ? fetal tissue. The American people deserve better representation, and better campaign conversations ? even the low-info voters on whom these candidates seem to rely.

As I indicated at the start, abortion is everybody's hot-button, non-negotiable issue. So much so that the opposing forces dissipate their energies denigrating each other, instead of collaborating around their obvious mutual interest in minimizing the procedure through practical prevention (meaning not limited to abstinence. One more Q&A: Q -- do you know what they call lovers who abstain? A ? parents) and streamlined adoption.

Obviously, it's an important national discussion ? perhaps so much so that it should not be left to the demagogues to mold public opinion and policy.
What is it worth to you?


Posted by Dave, a resident of Danville,
on Aug 18, 2015 at 2:48 pm

Hard to believe that the Republican presidential candidates would resort to distortions to rile up their base, right?

But, for a political party that relies on an ever-declining demographic, it is not surprising that it would want to increase the voter turn-out from its base (through whatever means are available) as much as it tries to create obstacles to voting for its opponents' likely supporters.

The unfortunate part is that such a callous approach to an important issue like reproductive health and choices has real-world consequences for people -- especially poor women.

Posted by Michael Austin, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Aug 18, 2015 at 4:13 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

People's Republic of China one-child policy.
Forced abortions and forced sterilisations.
During Mao's reign couples had up to four children.
After Mao's death the one-child per couple policy became the law.

[ ... deletion upon request]

The one child law is a little more relaxed in today's "Modern China".
There were also some exceptions to the law.

America as a whole will never agree on what is right and what is correct.
It is the coercion in America that decides, determines everything.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 18, 2015 at 4:35 pm


I find the above definition helpful in understanding how some individuals/groups structure arguments.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 18, 2015 at 4:58 pm

[deleted for irrelevance]

Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of another community,
on Aug 18, 2015 at 5:44 pm

cholo -- these definitions are pretty good, I think.

demagogue or demagog
[dem-uh-gog, -gawg]

1. a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.

2.(in ancient times) a leader of the people.

verb (used with object), demagogued, demagoguing. to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.

Posted by San Ramon Observer, a resident of San Ramon,
on Aug 18, 2015 at 6:17 pm

San Ramon Observer is a registered user.


Thanks for picking up this topic with some good factual information. I don't like to censor my blogs, but the last one got way out of control. I shall probably stick to less controversial subjects again for awhile.


Posted by Michael Austin, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Aug 18, 2015 at 6:26 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

[Note: it is generally a poor idea to repost material that has been edited -- as I earlier indicated to the re/poster by email, he is free to appeal to the Editor -- he is obviously not free to simply repost material that has already been removed once.

I'm surprised this further edit was necessary, but it has to be worse than this to spoil a great A's walk-off win in a sold-out house. TFC]

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 18, 2015 at 6:56 pm

Courage is required when sensitive readers happen upon shocking, horrific images that serve no purpose. I've heard that the suggested images were quite toxic and I agree with you that all Plutonians deserve a more civilized, critical discourse with fewer shocking references. Please, lets be civil.

May a more adult discourse continue. Gracias.

ps It's my impression with the above deletion, Mr. a, your comments means almost NADA! Good try...I always appreciate your cracks. best, Cholo

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 18, 2015 at 7:31 pm

There is a legacy of legal opinion expressed re: Abortion in the USA.

I have always loved reading the opinions of the US Supreme Court. Much of it I do not understand. However, that doesn't keep my senior buds or myself from trying to understand. It makes living in the USA a great privilege! VIVA AMERICA! VIVA!

History: Web Link

Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Aug 18, 2015 at 7:32 pm

Tom: I actually think the abortion issue is not on the top #10 list of key issues to most American voters but you Democrats love to talk about it as most voters are on your side on this issue. You talk about it for political gain issues. Republicans need to stop taking your bait and focus on issues that are more important to most voters. Dr. Carson is moving quickly up in the polls and is so much brighter and likable than Hillary so you Democrats bring up the abortion issue for political reasons.

Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of another community,
on Aug 19, 2015 at 8:49 am

Am: you cite no source for your top ten list claim, but you do credit Democrats in general, and humble scribe in particular, for keeping the issue center-stage, and that's hilarious. It is center stage at this point in the election cycle because GOP candidates are strenuously seeking to appeal to the Party's financial and voter bases, in that order. It is important to the uber-exclusive billionaire boys club that is underwriting the candidates, and for social conservatives and evangelicals, its status has been elevated by their defeats on other social fronts.

Further, it is of the GOP's own making, against the Party's hope of de-emphasizing those issues. Here's a commentator on WaPo earlier this month Web Link

"Senate Democrats on Monday blocked a Republican-backed effort to end federal funding for Planned Parenthood following the release of undercover videos that raise questions about the practice of harvesting tissue from aborted fetuses for research."

"The 53-46 procedural vote fell short of the 60 ayes needed to proceed with a bill that would immediately stop funding for the beleaguered women?s health-care provider. But the willingness of GOP leaders to bring the measure to a vote showed the new political importance of a social issue that had been sidelined just a month ago and heralded higher-stakes showdowns to come."

"Defunding Planned Parenthood is now a centerpiece of the Republican agenda going into the summer congressional recess, and some hard-liners have said they are willing to force a government shutdown in October if federal support for the group is not curtailed."

Who brought the issue to the Senate floor? Republican senators. Who has threatened a government shut-down? (Hint -- not the Dems).

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 pm


I find some positions presented re: abortion confusing. There are thousand and thousands of Americans that stand up against abortion. I try to be respectful of different positions but there's an issue that confuses me.

What we know today is that tens of thousands of American boys, girls, and vulnerable adults have been raped and in many instances, the victims have committed suicide, abused alcohol/drugs, or behave in a manner that often leads to incarceration or a lifetime of self-destructive behavior and alienation from family, friends, and community.

Representatives of numerous organized religions have a long history of sexual abuse/rape/murder of innocent children/vulnerable adults. In many instances, elected representatives and communities of faith remain silent about such horrible events as child rape/sexual abuse. Yet, many of these communities of faith will speak out and conduct a vigorous campaign against abortion.

It seems to me that the activities of Planned Parenthood are minor compared to the crimes perpetuated against innocent children/American families by organized religion.

For many years, I worked as a volunteer, tracking down over 250 images (posted online) of clergy sex offenders. Many responsible adults of various faiths refuse to help out. After about 10 yrs. I no longer do this time consuming volunteer work.

Incidentally, the numbers of children/adults who have been sexually abuse by reps of organized religion are staggering. The silence from most communities of faith is deafening.

Tom, can you help me understand how come the issue of abortion is so explosive and the rape/murder of innocent children/adults only receives a trickle of attention? I just don't undertand.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 19, 2015 at 3:13 pm

Correction: last line...I just don't understand.

Please be OK with removing this post. I was concerned about sharing my thoughts with you. Best...Cholo

Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of another community,
on Aug 19, 2015 at 8:15 pm

Cholo -- I suspect volumes have been written on this subject, and we're straining thread relevance here, but briefly the way I see it is that many human organizations, including many religious traditions and other non-profits, have the Good Work around which they're organized, AND the Institutional Stuff that ought to go hand-in-glove with the mission. But being HUMAN organizations, it often conflicts with the mission instead. When they feed the institutional factors and not the mission, they run off the track and into the ditch -- and people get hurt in thousands of ways, including the ones you identify.

It seems particularly perverse and poignant when the institutional factors of a religious group disappoint -- which is why those failures are so damaging and get so much attention when they're uncovered. But size and power provide temptation aplenty, and homosaps are rationalization machines.

Can I get an amen?

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 19, 2015 at 8:32 pm


Posted by Ed, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Aug 20, 2015 at 8:31 am

To Cholo - lets remember too that the percentage of clergy that abuse kids/adults is very very small compared to the vast number of dedicated clergy who do not engage in these practices.
I would even say the percentage is far lower than non-clergy who abuse kids/adults but have no facts to go by.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 20, 2015 at 8:49 am

Ed...I've done 10 years of research re: priest/nun child/vulnerable adult sex abuse. Rather than change the topic of Tom's post, I would refer you to Bishop Accountability and the Survivor's Network of Those Abused by Priests.

The Blog of former Catholic priest/monk Richard Sipe is also highly informative. Research contains a factual database and the hard numbers cannot be denied. There is too much data to confirm what is known.

It takes time to study/digest the facts re: rape/murder/sexual torture of children and vulnerable adults to understand the magnitude of clergy crimes against humanity. I'm not guided simply by percentages as soft numbers are easy to distort.

I agree that there are many good clergy of all faiths. It has only taken the behavior of thousands upon thousands of ordained clergy to ruin the reputations of the good clergy. That's unfortunate. Tragic.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 20, 2015 at 8:55 am

ED: Please study the writings of Richard Sipe, Fr. Tom Doyle, Sister Maureen Turlish, and Patrick Wall, former Catholic priest. All ordained Catholic clergy.

Web Link

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 20, 2015 at 9:14 am

To Ed: Center for Constitutional Rights/International World Court, The Hague

Web Link

Hopefully, this will help you understand the magnitude of the problem of child sexual abuse by clergy, male and female.

Posted by Marcia, a resident of Walnut Grove Elementary School,
on Aug 20, 2015 at 2:42 pm

Marcia is a registered user.

Wow! What a stir! Can I assume my videos that I posted on Roz's site got to a few of you? Even though you didn't watch them? What amazes me is that you're afraid to look truth "in the eye", sort of speak. Statistics, political jibes for gain, "DEMAGOGUE" references, all of it to avoid facing the real truth. It's simple folks, a living being being butchered is no less than if ISIS were whacking your head off. IT'S CRUEL TO THE Nth degree....and it HURTS! Now Tom talks of money and timelines. Money v a child? Really? 1930's, 1954...were the fetal tissues from abortions or miscarriages? Big difference, ya know. Legal abortions did not exist at this time. Regardless, I leave with two thoughts: reality stinks when you have to face your own personal, albeit misguided, beliefs. A beating heart belongs to a live human that God knew before it's conception. Secondly, beat up conservatives all you like but they stand strong behind the respect of life; a position I pride myself in. The liberals' overall moral decline is destroying our country; starting with the unborn. Like I said in Roz's post, "if only pro-abortionists were aborted, then we wouldn't have this discussion today."
PS Want to see "my" videos again?

Posted by Derek, a resident of Danville,
on Aug 20, 2015 at 2:48 pm

I would prefer to post this on Roz's page but I am not about to give out my email on a server that can easily be hacked.
I know this is off-topic Tom, and sorry for that, but one factor that would seem to make at least part of this discussion moot would be easier access to the "morning after" pill. Somehow though, many of the religious fanatics screaming loudly on Roz's blog are part & parcel of the same voting bloc that has seen to making RU-486 much harder to obtain. So they had better look in the mirror. Unless of course they are afraid that tiny Bobby Blastocyst will be looking back.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 20, 2015 at 3:49 pm

I appreciate the right of folks to disagree. It does get nasty at times but that happens in a democracy.

It's also more interesting to read when posters disagree. As far as I know, nobody has died after reading a post on this blog. Lots of folks dislike ole Cholo Pololo Mololo...prove to moi that somebody has dropped dead from reading any of my posts! tee hasn't happened!

I'm on my way to cook up dinner, feed my boys, wash the veggies, and watch Trump start a fight with somebody on the evening news. Trump is considering scaring il papa re: Isis. I can hardly wait! HIP HIP HOORAY! NO MERCY!!!

Posted by Tom Cushing, a blogger,
on Aug 20, 2015 at 7:47 pm

Tom Cushing is a registered user.

No problem Derek -- as you can tell, we take a pretty liberal view of relevance here at the RC.

Marcia: no. The rest of your comment speaks for itself, as does my blog on the subjects you goad.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 20, 2015 at 8:21 pm

Ia it ever acceptable to abort an "anchor" fetus?

Is an "anchor" fetus ever considered sub-human in the United States?

Please explain your response. Thank you.

Posted by Marcia, a resident of Walnut Grove Elementary School,
on Aug 21, 2015 at 10:13 am

Marcia is a registered user.

Tom, in closing from this blog, I leave a link that, in my opinion, spells this subject out as it should...reality of truth. Hopefully, it will change some attitudes about abortion as it is today.

Web Link

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 21, 2015 at 10:44 am

Marcia...Do you think that it's acceptable to abort an anchor fetus?

Many angry Americans state that illegals don't belong in the US. And, that their pregnancies should be aborted if it's proven that they are using the pregnancy/birth to remain in the US.

Is your group active/supportive financially re: the rape/murder of children by clergy of all faiths? SNAP would welcome all the support we can muster. Thank you. Cholo

Posted by San Ramon Observer, a resident of San Ramon,
on Aug 21, 2015 at 5:58 pm

San Ramon Observer is a registered user.

I received a nice comment from Marcia on my new Very bland blog Web Link I have one more comment I wanted to add to my blog on Planned Parenthood, but I thought I'd post it here so Tom can continue to field answers and I won't have to.

Beating heart vs. bleeding heart

I want to answer the question on my blog about a fetus' beating heart. This is again a non-issue. Chickens have beating hearts. Fish have beating hearts. So what! Dogs and cats have beating hearts and sentient brains. Millions of them are killed each year in "shelters" because of pet overpopulation.

The difference between a fetus under 4 months and a living, breathing, animal, is the animal knows what is going on around him or her. They can feel fear and pain when being euthanized (meaning killed).

Fear and pain and sentience are the factors I consider relevant in abortion. If the fetus doesn't feel anything and doesn't know anything, then it is not a human being. After the first 20 weeks, the fetal brain and nervous system develop and that's when I would limit abortions.

If all abortions were made illegal, as they were before the Roe v. Wade decision, then all abortions would be medically risky and unsafe. That is not something I ever want to return to.

Why is it that this unborn, under developed, not-yet-human being is more valuable than the woman or girl carrying it?


Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Aug 21, 2015 at 6:31 pm

Not sure why everybody wants to debate the underlying issue in my poor old blog that tried mightily to avoid it, but so be it. I've indicated my loss of patience with both 'pro' movements, who have demonized and battled each other to a stalemate, and continue to dissipate huge resources and energies lobbing legal brickbats over the wall.

I faced a similar issue in the companion animal welfare movement, where my choice was either to spend my time fighting the No-Kill vs. Establishment fight, or providing direct action by fostering/adopting-out actual animals in-need. I chose the latter course, and recommend it -- it feeds the soul.

Here, I'd like to see all these 'pros' uniting around their obvious common ground of contraception and especially streamlining/maximizing adoption opportunities. I believe That would save a ton more lives than the current hateful and ideological stalemate. That'd be progress in my book.

I am not, however, holding my breath.

Posted by BobB, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Aug 22, 2015 at 8:32 am


Very well said. I was going to reply to Marcia on your blog, but I have nothing to add.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 22, 2015 at 9:49 am

What do people do when photos of human fetus are on the menu? (China and other Asian countries)

cry all day...

Posted by Pleasanton was nice forty years ago, a resident of Castlewood,
on Aug 22, 2015 at 6:07 pm

What's the difference between a tissue and an organ?

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 22, 2015 at 7:37 pm

Tissue - Used to blow your nose.

Organ - Makes music.

Posted by Pleasanton was nice forty years ago, a resident of Castlewood,
on Aug 23, 2015 at 8:22 am

So pp was selling musical instruments? Because this is a joking matter right?
Tom where did you get your information that the video was "precisely edited"?
Tom how do you know the parents were told?
If it's such a worthy cause why aren't their services donated?
Selling is selling whether you lose money, break even or make a profit it's still selling.
For the record I'm pro choice.
So I will try again what is the difference between tissue and a organ?
If they were just selling tissue why do they say lung or lung and not lung tissue?

Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Aug 23, 2015 at 9:04 am

"Dammit Jim, I'm a blogger, not a doctor." The internet is awash with information, especially now, regarding the kinds of questions you ask. Maybe report back your findings?

As to the 'editing' inquiry, many issues have been raised about these videos -- and how you come out on those matters may depend on where you came in on the abortion question, itself. Here's a recent example: Web Link They obviously have a point-of-view, and the editing and narration both reflect it.

Parental notification issues are beyond the scope of this blog, and the donation cost question was covered in the text.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 23, 2015 at 9:46 am

Web Link

Jim...I hope this is helpful! your bud....C

Posted by anony-moo, a resident of Birdland,
on Aug 23, 2015 at 9:48 am

Web Link

Posted by pleasanton was nice forty years ago, a resident of Castlewood,
on Aug 24, 2015 at 10:55 am

Tom it appears your blog is nothing more than a joke as your "buds" Cholo along with anony-moo clearly state. Its a shame that you let them get away with that but maybe you agree with them. People who do not want to answer the tough questions resort to "humor" so they dont have to deal with the realty of their lack of courage or honor. Im talking about cholo and anony-moo and those who liked their comments. real compassionate for the mother going through this tough decision. Your lack of integrity is glaring. Their was a doctor in germany some time ago who was JUST doing science experiments. I put these people in his catagory
The entire unedited video is available to watch. If you are watching edited video than you are choosing not to get all the facts. Tom you made a statement that the mothers consent, but then go on to say its beyond the scope of this blog to know that. So is this your opinion?
The body parts which are clearly identified in the unedited video are being sold at cost. A lung is in fact a body part and selling is selling whether you make a profit or not. These are facts not opinions. Your response that they are selling these parts to offset cost so as not to use other funds goes the the spongeable argument. If they have to take money from the fund then the percentage of money used on abortions goes up. Nice accounting trick. But it does not change the fact they offered to sell lungs, not lung tissue regardless of the amount they sell it for. Nice opinion piece Tom. I regret to inform you your opinion is WRONG.
The humor on here is not funny its disgusting but that's the measure of the man or women whichever is the case. Should i expect anything less from people who condone selling baby parts.

Posted by Ed, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Aug 24, 2015 at 1:25 pm

After 37 posts I just think this thread played itself out about 10-15 posts back.
Now we're devolving into silliness since everyone's points have been stated and re-stated.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 24, 2015 at 6:05 pm

I'm afraid that I will have to visit The Wizrd of OZ to seek my honor...oh my!

You've never made an effort to communicate with me nice 49 yrs. ago?

I make a great deal of sense but we simply disagree on many issues.

It's so funny how to try to split me off as a bad object to make a point...but, what point? duh...

have a cute evening...enjoy viewing pics of dead "babies"...anony

Posted by Tom Cushing, a blogger,
on Aug 25, 2015 at 8:17 am

Tom Cushing is a registered user.

Ed is right. And now we have P40's invocation of Godwin's Law as a further demonstration that we've reached the end of the logical flamewar line.

Debates around this issue quickly become overheated (remember 'values-laden' in the blog?) and personally insulting. Just for the record, it is often demanded of me that I do commenters' internet research, lest they think their point otherwise is proven, ta-da. But I'm not running a seminar here, and even if I was, it would be the commenter's job to research and make his/her own points. Obviously, the demand was also made here under false pretenses.

Ed, I could close the thread, but that would further inflame folks who claim all manner of indignity around censorship and their misunderstandings of the First Amendment. So, I will simply hope it fades away. We'll see.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 25, 2015 at 11:52 am

"nice forty years ago" - Canned armadillo! Web Link

5 chopped fresh toma-toes, 1 fresh green onion, crushed potato chips, parsley,
black beans, 8 oz can, and of course a tablespoon of tequila!



Posted by pleasanton was nice forty years ago, a resident of Castlewood,
on Aug 27, 2015 at 8:53 am

PP is selling baby parts and this thread and cholo try to defend them by minimizing and lying about the facts. They sold lungs not lung tissue. So you are in favor of selling baby lungs. The video clearly states lungs among other parts and not tissue as you would mislead your readers to believe. That is a lack of honor. The truth hurts Tom. You write an opinion piece. When your opinion is challenged and shown to be wrong you and your ilk joke and attack and then when i do the same you cry victim
Time to act like a man and deal with the truth PP sells baby body parts and you condone it. Gonna post another link to a decorated cracker TOM?

[further personal insults of others deleted -- P40, this post is duplicative, and, in my view wrong on the facts and conclusions. It is also uncivil. I am doing you the courtesy of editing this one. I'd suggest that you not repeat it, again.]

Follow this blogger.
Sign up to be notified of new posts by this blogger.



Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

I Do I Don't: How to build a better marriage Page 15
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,146 views

Pop open the beer at the holiday table
By Deborah Grossman | 3 comments | 1,065 views

Local foundation tracks the state of giving here
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 456 views