I think what TomSwift is trying to point out is that the Snopes article is interminably, agonizingly long, and spends most of its rhetoric trying to demonize the investigating team, rather than providing a credible response to the claim (other than essentially saying "this is old news", a Clintonian dodge, when you really haven't answered the original question).

Be specific in your criticisms if you expect anyone to pay attention. Refute, point by point my statements, if you can. As you state, this is a forum not of the mindless, but of intelligent persons who expect an exchange of ideas, not accusations.

You must be well aware that in your statements you have twisted, misrepresented and falsified one fact after another. You must also be aware that, unlike CNN-like websites, the residents of this one are more intelligent and are unlikely to appreciate CNN-like antics.

Very well said. Excellent !

Given that PP is a publicly funded organization, it should have public accountability. I know, I know, I'm in the wrong country...

The law is just headed there--there's already been prosecution and prosecution attempts.

Depravity?
Have you looked at what we call "culture" today? Do you see high moral attitudes, the portrayal of heroes, or grand positive ideas? If you do, don't tell me that you didn't have to seek it out with difficulty before finding anything of that description. Possible exception of suggestions from the Gulch or similar sources. In other words, our art is deteriorating even faster than our politics.

Well said.

When does life begin? What are your moral objections or non-objections to abortion? Rand took the position that a woman's body was sacrosanct and hers to do with as she chooses. My wife and I are opposed to abortion. She was told that because she did something foolish during pregnancy (lifting something too heavy for her to lift) she developed problems that caused the doctors to suggest abortion. She would have none of it. As it turned out she had a perfectly healthy boy, 8.3 pounds, 20 inches, all fingers & toes intact. We feel this way, not because of any religious compulsion, but because we truly feel we are killing a child -- Our child. If I am against abortion, I can make my preferences known, I can choose to associate or not associate with those who think it's OK. But never would I propose legislation against it.

Wait, wait, wait. I'd bet you that the LGBT's are giving it serious thought somewhere.

Point back.

Your grasp of the concepts you're tossing around goes beyond my ability to discuss them with you.

The evidence is already in.

Alright. If I was able to still move after determining that my death was imminent, I would do much the same, except it would be to crawl up into some mountain area.

And there are many that would prefer that we step backwards in that progress.

I'm not sure the amount of public notification has anything to do with it. As they state, they obtain a release for each fetus. I just don't see that there practices are anyone else's business.

You ought to get a glimpse of what pathologist and medical examiners do to a body. Obviously this issue has to do with the abortion.

Yes, I think it is.

"....when they have to pass laws to protect them from you..."

Yours is a question about abortion of any kind, not using wasted parts, which are little different than a donated organ.

In the case of your question, I am quite happy the government has not sided with a practically 100% religious position that the mother should be slave to a little pile of cells...because a soul is created at conception and housed in the single cell created by fertilization of an egg. Sure that single cell is alive, but has a lot less to live for than my dog, with its memories, relationships and feelings.

Well, they already sell babies' foreskins to make facial creams for old hags, after all...

What amazes me is how agonized we are over whether or not a cold-blooded murderer suffers during an execution, yet are callously indifferent to the agony inflicted on a completely innocent being within minutes of birth. The process described by the creepy doctor in the interview has to prolong the torture of that unborn child.

What I find especially troubling is how many who favor these horrific vivisections of a living being are able to compartmentalize, avoiding any scintilla of compassion. If a child within days of breathing open air is only "fetal tissue," at what point does that being have the right to be called human? Some "pro-choice" (I have to laugh at that label, because these people are against the choice of a woman to bear live children) folk have actually said a mother shouldn't be tried for murder if she kills her child before its first birthday, because many infants don't survive that first year anyway (France doesn't count infants that die during the first year in their infant mortality figures, using this same logic).

I have no problem harvesting organs from the brain dead (lots of motorcyclists to provide those organs), but I'm sure most of us would not enjoy having those organs taken from us when we're alive, aware, and unanesthetized.

Well; everyone except therealbill...

http://m.snopes.com/pp-baby-parts-sale/

Yet another manufactured attack by the statists.

Ok, it's time to just ignore you overall as you're not here for discussion but to push your ideology. You asserted that most blacks wanted to end human life. The data does not show this. A rational, reasonable person would acknowledge their claim was false and that would be that.

Instead you try to make the claim you're talking about something else, and in this post you even reverse the order of causality.

So this is my last reply to you. I'm here for reasonable and rational discussion not absent-minded ideology and sophistry. Cheers.