Planned Parenthood is in Denial
-
So Hilary Rosen and her crew have been brought in to help PP? Interesting. And PP's Web site was "attacked by extremists," but not really. And PP created a very heavily biased push poll in an attempt at spin control. And PP didn't show up for a Texas Senate hearing where a former PP official testified that Houston's PP clinic - just one clinic - could make $120,000/month of profit from selling baby parts. And...
10 Quick, Important Developments On The Planned Parenthood Scandal
Planned Parenthood fails to convince anyone its web site was attacked, the resurrection of the mammogram falsehood, and mysterious media omissions.
-
Toddlers can be given up for adoption immediately and without a significant imposition on the mother. Fetuses can't.
#UnplannedParenthood
-
If someone from a food company is recorded saying "Of course we have a massive infestation problem, but there's ways around the regulations. laughs" Do you assume it's taken out of context?
Depends on how invested you are in the cognitive dissonance.
-
I don't fault him for that. It's much easier to give up a born child.
I fault him for saying that criticism of where the line is drawn for abortions due to concerns that a fetus is life is countered by saying life doesn't matter, only convenience.
At that point, even partial birth abortion can be justified.
And that's pretty evil.
Not to mention that adoption is less convenient than abortion, so if you wanted to balance that, you need to allow post-birth abortion, all the way up to real independence, somewhere around 18 years old.
His opinion is either absurd, or dishonest.
-
I would like to know.
It would be something to find out that the Bible said that elective killing of unborn is ok.
Because it also says, "I knew you before you were in the womb" paraphrased.
It doesn't exactly, but there's a clear distinction between accidentally killing unborn (the penalty is a fine) and accidentally killing the mother (death penalty).
-
That's an even worse defense of abortion.
I probably choose a somewhat poor wording, but I think it's just a restatement of one of the main arguments for having abortion legal, which is that the mother should have the right to choose what goes on with her body. Early on in pregnancy, I view that right as overriding the fetus's right to life. That's what I meant by significant imposition: not just tangible things like having to deal with morning sickness and the eventual birth, but what I view as a suppression of those rights. There's no need to impose on that right at all in the case of a toddler. That's what I meant.Now, I realize that you disagree with the "override" part of that explanation, and that's the part of the argument I'm actually sympathetic to. But to rephrase what I said before, I think if you don't at least see why the "pregnant mother" and "I have a toddler" situations are different enough to at least narrow the gap significantly, that I don't understand.
that a fetus is life is countered by saying life doesn't matter, only convenience.
I don't think that the fetus doesn't matter by any stretch. I view it as a situation where both mother and fetus have rights that are in direct conflict. My valuation the mother comes out on top early in the pregnancy and (because both the mother's "share" has decreased and the fetus's "share" has increased) the fetus comes out on top late in the pregnancy -- but concluding the first part doesn't mean I put the fetus at zero or even close to zero.Edit: And to tie that view to what I said in the first part of this response, late in the pregnancy I also view abortion prohibitions as a significant imposition on the mother and her rights -- but in this case, that imposition is worth it because it's for a greater good. Her rights aren't at zero there either, just less than the fetus's.
-
It would be something to find out that the Bible said that elective killing of unborn is ok.
Because it also says, "I knew you before you were in the womb" paraphrased.
Before, not while.
Unless you're about to argue that Christians should consider all potential people who might exist to already be people, with rights - with the result, for instance, that not trying for a baby all the time a woman is not pregnant is equivalent to abortion - then that can have no bearing on the question of at what stage in development personhood begins.
What that line means is that (according to the Bible) God knows of every person who will exist and who they will be, what they will be like - in common parlance, He knows the future.
-
It doesn't exactly, but there's a clear distinction between accidentally killing unborn (the penalty is a fine) and accidentally killing the mother (death penalty).
Well, that doesn't cover elective termination.
And, even if, it would mean heavy, heavy taxes on abortion procedures at best.
And of course, that would be denying "health rights".
-
Well, that doesn't cover elective termination.
No, but it clearly shows that there's no scriptural basis for considering a foetus' life equivalent to a born person's.
EDIT: for clarity, I'm not saying that it demonstrates that the Bible considers a foetus not to be a person, or it's life to have no value.
-
I think if you don't at least see why the "pregnant mother" and "I have a toddler" situations are different enough to at least narrow the gap significantly, that I don't understand.
I do.
But that means we can't argue for the boundary of life during a fetus development.
We have to admit that abortion is killing of a life, from the result of choosing a lesser evil / choosing who's rights supercede the other's.
That's a perfectly valid argument.
But you can't argue that, and pretend that you're arguing boundary of life. It's two separate arguments, and you need to make them separately.
It's akin to honor killings at that point. The "right" of the family to preserve their honor supercedes the right of the child or wife to life. It's a collective right, that overrules an individual right.
Unless you're about to argue that Christians should consider all potential people who might exist to already be people, with rights
It very well may be.
But that just means that God gets to choose when termination is wrong.
And since he hasn't specifically weighed in on the subject, we can only go by context.
And there isn't a lot there.
No, but it clearly shows that there's no scriptural basis for considering a foetus' life equivalent to a born person's.
But it doesn't allow for the elective killing of an unborn, that might actually be a greater offense.
-
But it doesn't allow for the elective killing of an unborn, that might actually be a greater offense.
Who's saying it does?
You already pointed that out and no-one has contradicted you. What I was saying is that it provides a clear basis, for anyone basing their values on the Bible, to distinguish between the born and unborn in terms of the value of life - whether that means it's ok to end the life of a foetus, or just that it's a lesser sin than killing a born person.
I have not, by the way, expressed my own view on abortion, nor do I intend to. I'm just addressing the logical implications of this.
-
And PP didn't show up for a Texas Senate hearing where a former PP official testified that Houston's PP clinic - just one clinic - could make $120,000/month of profit from selling baby parts.
Actually, her testimony indicated that they made more than $120,000/month of profit. From the article (emphasis mine):
She said **her clinic received $200 per specimen.** She claimed that costs for such harvesting were minimal (only $5-$10 per specimen, by her telling) and that the Houston Planned Parenthood clinic, **if it charged only $100 per specimen** and if only half of the women seeking abortions each day consented to donations, **would generate $120,000/month** selling baby parts.
So that $120k figure was arrived at assuming that the clinic received only half the rate that they actually did. Given the collection costs of $5-$10 per specimen[1], that's an average of $93 profit per specimen in the hypothetical situation, meaning about 1290 specimens. Since they were actually getting $200 per specimen, that's an additional $100 pure profit per specimen. That brings the actual figure up to about $249,000/month. From a single clinic.
[1] Although it makes my stomach churn, I'm going to continue using the word specimen as it isn't clear whether she means a full fetus or a fetal organ.
-
Actually, I took it back to the Hebrew, and it looks like this verse is being misinterpreted.
What it is saying is that if the baby is born early, and nothing is wrong with it, the penalty is only a fine.
If the baby is born early, and there is harm to it, then the penalty is whatever harm is caused to the baby.The woman's rights are already covered by other laws that talk about penalties for harm.
-
What that line means is that (according to the Bible) God knows of every person who will exist and who they will be, what they will be like - in common parlance, He knows the future.
...and he created abortion. If one wants to go with the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient god that is. Unless you go with @boomzilla's definition of those terms, because they tend to change with the argument.
-
Fair enough.
-
Actually, I took it back to the Hebrew, and it looks like this verse is being misinterpreted.
If you had to take it back to the Hebrew to find out that it was misinterpreted, that raises a bunch of other issues that you may want to take care of before getting back to the abortion debate. Also, the "if it ain't King James it ain't the Bible" crowd would probably like to have a word with you.
-
But that just means that God gets to choose when termination is wrong.
And since he hasn't specifically weighed in on the subject, we can only go by context.
And there isn't a lot there.
We seem to have got from 'the Bible says it isn't ok' to 'the Bible doesn't say it is ok therefore we must assume it isn't.' Unless otherwise specified, it's more usual for everything not forbidden to be allowed than for everything not allowed to be forbidden.
-
So Hilary Rosen and her crew have been brought in to help PP? Interesting. And PP's Web site was "attacked by extremists," but not really. And PP created a very heavily biased push poll in an attempt at spin control. And PP didn't show up for a Texas Senate hearing where a former PP official testified that Houston's PP clinic - just one clinic - could make $120,000/month of profit from selling baby parts. And...
Do you have a cite for this that a normal, non-crazy person would consider a valid news source?
-
As for the bit about Abby Johnson, I can't find anything about her making those statements in the texas hearing (actually, I'm having trouble finding much about what was said in the Texas hearing), but this appears to be the original article where she was quoted.
In all honesty, the only leftist media coverage I can find about the hearing (let's face it, there isn't any truly central media) only mentions a few things: the hearing exists, PP won't attend, and the Texas AG has said that they have received additional videos which have not been released to the public.
As for the Hilary Rosen bit, that's all over the place, if you look.
-
The entire thing is politically motivated. In the first article you posted, TX lawmakers promised to put a stop to what PP was doing. There was no consideration for whether or not it was legal or illegal. They are going to try to stop it regardless.
Just horrible politics as usual.
-
The entire thing is politically motivated. In the first article you posted, TX lawmakers promised to put a stop to what PP was doing. There was no consideration for whether or not it was legal or illegal. They are going to try to stop it regardless.
You're taking it out of context. The article said they were going to determine first if they were illegally selling tissue and then see what steps could be taken to put a swift and decisive stop to that. I know that the paragraph you are referring to doesn't include the word "illegal", but it can be reliably inferred from its usage in similar situations in other parts of the article.
-
"In announcing the hearing earlier this month, Republican committee chairman Charles Schwertner of Georgetown said the committee would focus on determining whether Planned Parenthood affiliates in Texas were selling fetal tissue and what steps could be "taken to put a swift and decisive stop to it.""
I see nothing there about legality, only the chairman's morality, and I do not believe we can reliably infer anything.
It is just political pandering to the loudest.
-
Do you have a cite for this that a normal, non-crazy person would consider a valid news source?
http://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=30&clip_id=10412
Advance to 2h30m.I guess the above link isn't technically a news source - "just" a video record of testimony. By the way, the article I linked helpfully provided the link to this video.
-
This post is deleted!
-
"In announcing the hearing earlier this month, Republican committee chairman Charles Schwertner of Georgetown said the committee would focus on determining whether Planned Parenthood affiliates in Texas were selling fetal tissue and what steps could be "taken to put a swift and decisive stop to it.""
I see nothing there about legality, only the chairman's morality, and I do not believe we can reliably infer anything.
It is just political pandering to the loudest.
You sure seem to be inferring a lot into this little quote, surrounded by a lot of "summary". Are you absolutely certain that this summation accurately reflects Dr. Schwertner's original statements? Are you sure that he didn't include the word "illegal" in his statements? Given that the article did use the word illegal in other places when discussing the sale of parts in connection to the hearing, such as here:
The Senate Health and Human Services Committee is expected to examine whether Planned Parenthood affiliates in Texas are illegally profiting from the sale of tissue of aborted fetuses — an allegation stirred up by videos released by the Center for Medical Progress.
A well practiced reader could be expected to infer – in the same article – that other references to PP selling fetal tissue would also mean "illegal profit from sale".
-
By the way, the article I linked helpfully provided the link to this video.
Yeah, mixed in with 800 other links to "sources" that fell off the right wing.
-
Yeah, mixed in with 800 other links to "sources" that fell off the right wing.
Nothing but an open mind here.
-
You sure seem to be inferring a lot into this little quote, surrounded by a lot of "summary". Are you absolutely certain that this summation accurately reflects Dr. Schwertner's original statements? Are you sure that he didn't include the word "illegal" in his statements?
I find it reasonable to assume that...
Vote Smart | Facts For All
Vote Smart provides free, unbiased, in-depth information about current officials, candidates, issues, legislation, and voting. Non-partisan and nonprofit since 1988.
He doesn't care about legality, only enforcing his own morality. But, let me see if I can find the complete, unabridged quote somewhere.
-
I have searched, and the only articles I can find only have the blurb about,
"taken to put a swift and decisive stop to it."
Texas Lawmakers Set to Scrutinize Planned Parenthood
:watermark(cdn.texastribune.org/media/watermarks/2015.png,-0,30,0)/static.texastribune.org/media/images/2013/07/22/Protesters-Split.jpg)
A Texas Senate panel will meet Wednesday to scrutinize Planned Parenthood practices in the aftermath of the release of undercover videos of the abortion provider's executives discussing fetal tissue …
Interesting little tidbit from this particular article, that appears at a glance to be written with a very Pro-Life stance...
Planned Parenthood health centers in Texas do not currently donate tissue for medical research, according to the organization.
So....how is it any of Schwertner's, or Texas' business if it is not occurring in their state?
-
Given that the article did use the word illegal in other places when discussing the sale of parts in connection to the hearing, such as here:
Nothing about illegal here...
Schwertner said. “I plan to call the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services into an emergency meeting later this month to ascertain whether this appalling practice is currently taking place in Texas, and if so, what steps can be taken to put a swift and decisive stop to it.”
Texas launches 3 probes into Planned Parenthood over video
The announced inquiries by the attorney general, the Health and Human Services Commission...
That sure as hell sounds like: "Let's stop it, whether it is legal or not."
-
No. I never do that.
I'm saying that there isn't much there.But it does seem like that Exodus verse actually means the reverse.
If you had to take it back to the Hebrew to find out that it was misinterpreted, that raises a bunch of other issues that you may want to take care of before getting back to the abortion debate.
That's why we have scholars.
You'd be surprised to find out that the 6000 year old Earth doesn't have much support from the people who's lifetime job is to study and interpret the Bible.Also, the "if it ain't King James it ain't the Bible" crowd would probably like to have a word with you.
I wasn't aware that being a Christian means submitting to their authority.
"Let's stop it, whether it is legal or not."
Like sexism in video games?
-
Like sexism in video games?
You say that as though you assume I am against tits in video games? Or that I play video games at all? Or give a shit about sexism in video games?
For the record, I tend to think that Anita Sarkeesian is a bit of a cunt. Next time you might want to try "ready, aim, fire", instead of "ready, fire, aim".
-
@abarker said:
Given that the article did use the word illegal in other places when discussing the sale of parts in connection to the hearing, such as here:
Nothing about illegal here...
Schwertner said. “I plan to call the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services into an emergency meeting later this month to ascertain whether this appalling practice is currently taking place in Texas, and if so, what steps can be taken to put a swift and decisive stop to it.”
Texas launches 3 probes into Planned Parenthood over video
The announced inquiries by the attorney general, the Health and Human Services Commission...
That sure as hell sounds like: "Let's stop it, whether it is legal or not."
What did he mean by "this appalling practice"? Without his preceding comments – you know, context – you still can't say a fucking thing about whether he said anything about legality.
-
What did he mean by "this appalling practice"? Without his preceding comments – you know, context – you still can't say a fucking thing about whether he said anything about legality.
Gotcha. So, without having a written transcript of his entire speech back to his first words we are unable to infer context and we should just assume that he was referring to legality. Because....raisins.
-
@abarker said:
What did he mean by "this appalling practice"? Without his preceding comments – you know, context – you still can't say a fucking thing about whether he said anything about legality.
Gotcha. So, without having a written transcript of his entire speech back to his first words we are unable to infer context and we should just assume that he was referring to legality. Because....raisins.
It sure as hell beats pissing on someone because you assume the worst about them.
-
you still can't say a fucking thing about whether he said anything about legality.
I can't find a written transcript of everything the man has said since "Ma-ma", but I found a little bit more...
“The recent video showing a senior Planned Parenthood executive casually discussing the sale of organs and dismembered body parts of aborted human babies is unquestionably one of the most evil and deplorable things I’ve ever seen. I know many Texans are equally horrified by such a callous disregard for innocent human life,” said Sen. Schwertner. “After speaking with Lt. Governor Patrick, I plan to call the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services into an emergency meeting later this month to ascertain whether this appalling practice is currently taking place in Texas, and if so, what steps can be taken to put a swift and decisive stop to it.”
So...you can just pull an assumption out of your ass that he is referring to legality, but until you can find the entire quote starting with him referring to legality I will infer from the fucking context that he is referring to his own morality because I can't find a damned thing about him referring to legality.
-
It sure as hell beats pissing on someone because you assume the worst about them.
Like you do with PP?
-
@abarker said:
It sure as hell beats pissing on someone because you assume the worst about them.
Like you do with PP?
I've based my opinion of PP on:
- Regular claims that they are the "only" provider of women's health care for non-privileged women in the US. This is a lie. Numerous other options have previously been listed, plus many standard OB/GYN offices accept medicare and medicaid, while providing more comprehen
- Regular claims that PP provides comprehensive women's health care. This is another lie. They only provide:
- Basic contraceptives (also available from many OB/GYNs and other non-profit organizations)
- Minimal screenings (Have high-blood pressure? They'll refer you. Need a mammogram? They'll refer you.)
- Abortions (Most PP facilities only have doctors for abortions. The rest is handled by nurses)
- Mounting evidence that they are breaking the law.
If they can't be honest about what they do, is it any wonder I hate them?
-
Not to mention that they get plenty of federal funding, so every taxpayer gets to pay for their apparent lawlessness (for starters).
-
Regular claims that they are the "only" provider of women's health care for non-privileged women in the US. This is a lie. Numerous other options have previously been listed, plus many standard OB/GYN offices accept medicare and medicaid, while providing more comprehen
Not the only, but I do believe they are the largest... By a long shot.
Regular claims that PP provides comprehensive women's health care. This is another lie. They only provide:
Women's health care? Well, not comprehensive. But they do provide comprehensive women's care.
Minimal screenings (Have high-blood pressure? They'll refer you.
My doctor will also. That fucking asshole. We should bomb his office or house.
Need a mammogram? They'll refer you.)
My wife's primary care physician does the same thing. Better make two bombs, or four, if we are going to do house and office.
Abortions (Most PP facilities only have doctors for abortions. The rest is handled by nurses)
Which is a very small portion of what they do. But let's face it, this should have been #1 (and was...before you ninja edited it....). This is why you hate them. Just say it. Just say that if all the rest were proven false to you that you would still hate them for this one specific reason. Be intellectually honest and take the rest of the list away, because it matters fuck-all to you.
Mounting evidence that they are breaking the law.
You have a point here, because all of this evidence comes for an unbiased, non-ideologically, intellectually honest, non-corrupt, organization that has never broken the law to push their own ideology.
Oh...wait...none of those qualifiers are true. This case is like citing "Bowling for Columbine" in a gun control debate.
-
I've based my opinion of PP on:
- Regular claims that they are the "only" provider of women's health care for non-privileged women in the US. This is a lie. Numerous other options have previously been listed, plus many standard OB/GYN offices accept medicare and medicaid, while providing more comprehen
- Regular claims that PP provides comprehensive women's health care. This is another lie. They only provide:
- Basic contraceptives (also available from many OB/GYNs and other non-profit organizations)
- Minimal screenings (Have high-blood pressure? They'll refer you. Need a mammogram? They'll refer you.)
- Abortions (Most PP facilities only have doctors for abortions. The rest is handled by nurses)
- Mounting evidence that they are breaking the law.
If they can't be honest about what they do, is it any wonder I hate them?
In addition to the video scandal PP is dealing with, there's now this:
Planned Parenthood failed to report 13-year-old girl’s abuse
Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains was hit with a complaint Wednesday for performing an abortion on a 13-year-old girl without reporting possible sexual abuse against the underage girl and returning h
According to court documents, the girl, known as R.Z., went to the Denver clinic on May 3, 2012, with her stepfather, Timothy David Smith. Although she wrote her correct birth date on forms, the Planned Parenthood employees did not question her or report suspected sexual abuse, as required by Colorado law.
Smith, who was later convicted of felony sexual abuse and sent to prison, identified himself as her father, although the girl referred to him during the visit as “Tim.” Colorado law requires giving parents 48 hours’ written notice before an abortion may be performed on a minor.
So a PP facility in Colorado really stepped in it. They:
- Failed to report a case of possible sexual abuse against a 13-yo minor, as required by law.
- Returned the girl to the custody of the man who abused her.
- Performed an abortion without notifying her parents, as required by law.
-
a PP facility in Colorado
-sigh-
OK, so every time a portion of an organization does something wrong, we should do away with that entire organization?
Let's get rid of:
- The Catholic Church
- The Mormon Church
- ...actually all religions
- The Republican Party (not a bad idea...)
- The Democratic Party (not a bad idea either...)
- All of Washington D.C. (best idea yet)
Basically everything. Let's get rid of organizations.
-
The point wasn't against you.
The point was that it is valid to argue for attempts to stop things that are legal.
Legality isn't the final moral say.
-
The point wasn't against you.
The point was that it is valid to argue for attempts to stop things that are legal.
Legality isn't the final moral say.
Gotcha. Let's stop everything we disagree with, through any means necessary, whether it is legal or not. Let's start with free speech, because quite a few people in this thread say things I find unpalatable.
-
Not the only, but I do believe they are the largest... By a long shot.
So what? What does their size matter? It doesn't mean they can provide better care, it just means they can play CYA better.
@abarker said:
Minimal screenings (Have high-blood pressure? They'll refer you.
My doctor will also. That fucking asshole. We should bomb his office or house.
You know how a typical doctor visit start with a blood pressure screening? So do PP visits. Based
on some of the reports from former PP employees, if you go in for a screening, and they find you have high blood pressure, they won't even finish the screening. Went in for a pap smear and have high blood pressure? No pap smear, but here's a referral!@abarker said:
Need a mammogram? They'll refer you.)
My wife's primary care physician does the same thing. Better make two bombs, or four, if we are going to do house and office.
! Any PCP would do that, since PCP aren't specialists. Some OB/GYNs (such as the one my wife used to go to, not sure about her current one) have the necessary equipment on hand for mammograms.@abarker said:
Abortions (Most PP facilities only have doctors for abortions. The rest is handled by nurses)
Which is a very small portion of what they do. But let's face it, this should have been #1 (and was...before you ninja edited it....).No, that never moved. There was a ninja-edited, but you did not identify it. Thanks for playing! Try again next time!
As for it being a small portion, that's why it's listed last in "what they actually do". Duh!
This is why you hate them. Just say it. Just say that if all the rest were proven false to you that you would still hate them for this one specific reason. Be intellectually honest and take the rest of the list away, because it matters fuck-all to you.
And out come your personal attacks now. I've been trying very hard to avoid such things, but you're making it rather difficult.
You have a point here, because all of this evidence comes for an unbiased, non-ideologically, intellectually honest, non-corrupt, organization that has never broken the law to push their own ideology.
So the testimony of a former employee doesn't count? Do the guilty have to actually confess before becomes a logical possibility?
-
every time a portion of an organization does something wrong, we should do away with that entire organization?
If the wrongdoing was sanctioned, explicitly or implicitly, by higher-ups in the organization, and especially if the wrongdoing occurs in several parts of the organization, then that organization should be shunned until (or unless) the organization takes steps to correct the wrongdoing.
-
So a PP facility in Colorado really stepped in it. They:
Failed to report a case of possible sexual abuse against a 13-yo minor, as required by law.
Returned the girl to the custody of the man who abused her.
Performed an abortion without notifying her parents, as required by law.From the article:
The conservative Alliance Defending Freedom filed a complaint with the Colorado Department of Regulatory Affairs against the Planned Parenthood affiliate on behalf of the pro-life Colorado Family Action.
Hmmmmm, let's check these people out...
American conservative Christian nonprofit organization with the stated goal of "defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation."
Seems legit.
Until the trial is done, let's not convict them. Deal?
Although I will admit that in this article, the evidence against seems damning. I try to not throw the baby out with the bath water though...
-
If the wrongdoing was sanctioned, explicitly or implicitly, by higher-ups in the organization, and especially if the wrongdoing occurs in several parts of the organization, then that organization should be shunned until (or unless) the organization takes steps to correct the wrongdoing.
Well, that definitely leaves the list I mentioned in play. We can also add the Boy Scouts to that list, now that I think about it.
-
-sigh-
OK, so every time a portion of an organization does something wrong, we should do away with that entire organization?
Did I say that?
/rereads previous post
Nope, I didn't say that.
What I did say was:
In addition to the video scandal PP is dealing with, there's now this:
…
So a PP facility in Colorado really stepped in it.
In other words (since your brain is stuck on a single track), "Hey look, PP has another scandal to deal with. They've got a facility in Colorado playing it fast and loose with the rules."
-
No, that never moved.
Yes it did.
There was a ninja-edited, but you did not identify it.
Yes I did.
Thanks for playing!
You're welcome.
Try again next time!
I watched it fucking move.
Exodus 21:22 - Compare Bible Verse Translations
Alliance Defending Freedom - Wikipedia