Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
At what dollar value does it become "selling"?
Well, you're trying to establish that it is so why don't you start by citing what the costs should be for the extraction and preservation.
It doesn't matter. If they are donating, then they are donating. The moment they charge the organization they're providing the parts to money, that's called "selling".
The "extraction" cannot legally be planned. By law, they can only donate the parts from an aborted fetus that just happen to remain and may not plan at all for them. So the cost is already paid for as part of the abortion procedure. If they're calculating an additional cost for performing abortions in a manner which preserves organs, then they are in violation of the law. Preservation is up to them, obviously. But so is my choice to keep old socks in a drawer until I donate them. That's a cost they must choose to bear if they want to donate. Period.
There should be no money at all exchanging hands between PP and any company they donate parts to. Period. That there is at all automatically makes it impossible to differentiate between donating and selling. Which, if we were talking about an old car or something, isn't a huge deal. When we're talking about human body parts? Big deal.
Quote:
It's illegal to select a different method of abortion for that purpose. It's not illegal to avoid crushing a specific part of the body during the process of conducting the same procedure that you'd be conducting regardless.
Wrong:
Quote:
(ii) no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue; and
If the doctor adjusts what part of the fetus to grab when pulling it out (we're pretty much speaking of partial birth or similar types of abortion here btw), for the purpose of obtaining tissue to donate, that is in direct violation of the law. If she were going to use the forceps on part X of the fetus because that's the best part to grab for performing a safe abortion, she'd do that and wouldn't need to make any changes. The fact that she discussed, on video, deciding what parts to crush so as to preserve tissue for donation is an admission of violating this law. There's no way around that.
I'm sure you'll argue that if it's just as safe to grab it here or there, so it makes no difference, but that's not the point. She admitted to making a conscious decision to adjust what part of the fetus to damage while performing an abortion so as to maximize the usable tissue for donation. She violated the law. Period.
Edited, Jul 30th 2015 6:10pm by gbaji