David Daleiden at a first glance is an average-looking, 27 year old white man. Some may find the clean-shaven, young guy to be attractive, with his signature short, gel-spiked, black hair. He is lanky, standing taller than the average male, at 5'10, and weighing just under 130 lbs. Everything about him is stiff, unless he is seen scoffing in the media, or schmoozing up a woman affiliated with the abortion industry- in which case, his semi-full pink lips are no longer pursed, but opened, revealing the gap in his big front teeth. He has very dark eyes under his, typically stressed, raised eyebrows. His forehead tends to crease, in unison with his hard blinks and gulps; very noticeable due to his large Adam's apple. He has a pair of considerable, turned out ears, and a distinct, but not very large, nose. When speaking, he uses a wide vocabulary, and can sound intelligible. However, he once used the adjective "cute," sarcastically, in a news interview about Planned Parenthood, and it highlighted an unprofessional side to him. He talks moderately fast, with a slightly nasally voice. His classic outfit is a dark blazer over a dark collared shirt with a thin, once again dark, tie...spot a common element? Sometimes he appears smug or sarcastic when discussing Planned Parenthood, and he can interrogate aggressively, but he has also been called charming.
2. Can you identify THREE specific claims being made by this stakeholder? The claims should be public and about the specific story you're investigating. Provide direct quotes for three different claims or ideas made in public by this stakeholder. Each quote sould be clearly hyperlinked to the original source.
1. “Planned Parenthood’s criminal conspiracy to make money off of aborted baby parts reaches to the very highest levels of their organization. Elected officials must listen to the public outcry for Planned Parenthood to be held accountable to the law and for our tax dollars to stop underwriting this barbaric abortion business.” Quote cited found in last paragraph.
In simpler terms, "PP sells fetal parts to make money."
2. "There are also serious problems with the way they obtain consent from the woman having an abortion. Patients are not being told that Planned Parenthood receives remuneration for fetal tissue, and so the consent to “donate” tissue is invalid — patients are consenting to donations, but in reality sales are occurring." Found in the answer to 3rd question on webpage.
In simpler terms, "PP lies about donation aspect, in order to get consent from patients."
3."When Planned Parenthood partners with a middle man biotech company to allow those technicians to come into their clinic and harvest the body parts, Planned Parenthood actually doesn't incur any costs from the harvesting of the fetal organs because the technicians are the ones consenting with the patients, they're packaging the tissue, they're dissecting the fetus', they're shipping it off, all of those costs are absorbed by the biotech company and yet Planned Parenthood is still getting paid $50, $75, even $100 just from supplying the aborted fetus." Heard in the first two minutes.
In simpler terms, "It's not even PP staff who gets the consent from the patients."
Now, Daleiden is inconsistent and PP argues he is lying.
 |
| RevSpitz. "Donald Splitz holds Anti-abortion sign" 4/22/10, via wikimedia. CC BY-SA 3.0 |
3. Can you explain how valid these claims are? Objectively, how much weight do these claims carry? How credible are they? Be specific. Think about how poorly or successfully the stakeholder cites FACTS, plays on our EMOTIONS, or presents themself as a CREDIBLE actor in the debate.
Daleiden appeals heavily to our emotions. He forcibly reminds us that fetal tissue comes from abortion. He mentions abortion and "barbaric abortion business," "aborted baby parts," and mentions tax dollars, which can catch many peoples' attention, when referring to how PP is supposedly making money from selling fetal organs.
The fact that the video footage, that Daleiden claims to reveal the truth of PP and their business, is clearly spliced and edited, should automatically raise questions of just how valid everything he says is.
He does offer some curious food for thought, though. For example, by adding in written slides that show U.S. laws, persuading us to think PP may be going against the law by Dr. Nucatola's "incriminating" conversation at lunch. - but, that's only if one views the video and reads his blog post, before taking a step back to research for yourself.
After the video's initial shocking nature, you may realize that Daleiden arrives at his conclusions based on footage that, even in the "unedited, full length" version, is still not proof of PP's wrongdoings...
Also, I think it is interesting that Daleiden did not respond to NYT (typically liberal), but responded to other medias like the Register (a catholic news source) and the National Review which are much more conservative and openly conservative. He appeared on Bill O'Reilly a day after vid. release, and he even posted that interview on the CMP youtube channel, clearing thinking it shows him in a favorable light.
4. Can you explain how these claims are similar and/or different to the other stakeholders? Be clear and precise - does this stakeholder have anything in common with others involved in the debate? Who do they have the least in common with? Why?
Republican Congressman view the matter similar to Daleiden, that's why many have tried/opened investigations of their own on Planned Parenthood. These congressman, Bindal from Louisiana for example, is pro-life, just like Daleiden.
Planned Parenthood and several other organizations have come forward and denied the truth of his claims. PP says they do not make a profit from the sale of fetal tissue, they are just covering their costs, and it is legal to transfer fetal tissue.
No comments:
Post a Comment