[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

This part, where you said, "Do you know if PP kills babies who have been born alive, and sells their organs?"

The problem with this statement is that you're asking someone to prove a negative. It's a fallacy in informal logic. To use another example, "Do I know if OldDog has non-consensual sex with farm animals?"

There is about as much evidence that OldDog has non-consensual sex with farm animals as there is evidence that "PP kills babies who have been born alive, and sells their organs." One statement is just as ridiculous as the other.

In the long excerpt of dialogue you pasted, the only person who used "harvest" in terms of an organ was the undercover sting person. The PP person didn't say it. The majority of what the PP person said was, if specific tissue is requested, we can tailor, to some extent, how the procedure goes, in an attempt to get the tissue requested.

Of course, what the PP person did say, and which I strongly support, is, "I’d rather this actually get used for something, so I think, as much as the patients, the providers absolutely want to help."

The patients agree to donate the tissue. It can't be done without their consent. Because they think vaccinations and treatments for blindness and diabetes are important.

If you've ever received a polio vaccine, you have personally benefited from fetal tissue research.

and regarding the highlighted part, i believe the mmr vaccine as well.

and here's a cnn article, which discusses that fetal tissue research has gone on since the 30's..and that with advances in stem cell research, lab work, etc, fetal tissue use might be on its way out....but not because it hasn't proved useful. and it definitely has.