Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years, 3 months ago
    My initial reaction is, Bravo! Let us use the otherwise wasted parts from dead bodies to help save other lives! Totipotent stem cells from an embryo or a fetus are terrifically powerful tools for research and therapy. They have been successfully used to counter macular degeneration and Parkinsons, among other disorders.

    If your reaction to this video (which is possibly fake - see jdg's link to Reason article) is a reaction against abortion per se, then that is a separate discussion. The main thing is that these 'things' (human or otherwise) are already dead and it is good that their body parts can be used for improving the lives of people who are not-dead.

    Legal harvest of fetal stem cells from aborted fetuses follows guidelines that are developed by the individual countries, but there is a general consensus on the following precepts (ED Biomed, 2002):

    "There is a ‘strong’ consensus about some of the central conditions for good clinical practice regarding EFTT. These concern the following conditions:
    1) the decision to abort should not be influenced by
    the subsequent EFTT;
    2) commercialisation is not acceptable;
    3) tissue may only be obtained from dead embryos or fetuses;
    4) informed consent should be obtained;
    5) the decision to terminate the pregnancy must be
    made before consent for donating EFTT is
    solicited;
    6) approval of experimental study by a qualified ethics committee

    Interestingly, those parameters, arrived at by various ethics councils (Sweden and Canada are the ones I recall), were very similar, though the councils acted independently.

    The existence an EKG does not prove that something is human - chickens have known EKG patterns, but that will not prevent me from having chicken for lunch.

    The future of stem cell research probably does not lie in cells harvested from aborted fetuses, but in reconditioning your own endogenous stem cells to make different lines and tissues as needed. This is difficult, and it is more difficult for some tissues than for others (liver cells were a real problem). Using these fetal cells can bridge the gap between our current knowledge and the ability to clone our own body parts.

    The last comment that I want to make is that this is an individual choice. On the 'murder of an adult human' we have a large social consensus - and we have laws against that. There is not a large consensus on whether abortion is right or wrong, which means that there should not be a law against it - it should be up to the individual.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 3 months ago
      I'm just not a big fan of consensus laws or consensus not-laws. I think I would prefer a simpler statement of 'No, its none of your business and leave it to the free market'.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
      So, the question again is quite simple... when does life begin?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 4 years, 3 months ago
        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by H6163741 4 years, 3 months ago
          I don't think we are talking about a mass of cells; at least I'm not. I'm talking about an abortionist pulling the arms and legs off of a being with brain waves and a heartbeat.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
            And nobody can 'prove' "when the soul enters" or any other such belief.
            AND implicit in that 'argument' is a 'definition of "alive" ' that is based on brain waves OR heartbeat... Which is NOT proof, but nothing more than consensus/agreement, no matter who mis-defines it or how.

            Sorry.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
        No, first, that's not the question here unless you try to make it the question.
        Second, the question may be simple but the answer, if any, leads to a VERY complex discussion.
        Third, when I enter such a 'discussion,' my First Question is: "Define 'Life' and 'Begins' before we go any further," at which point most such 'discussions' implode, because the folks trying to make the case against abortion or choice refuse to define those concepts.
        There are NO 'scientific' definitions of either term. And without that, any further 'discussion' is mental masturbation.

        Sorry.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  nickursis 4 years, 3 months ago
      Good observations and comment Jan. I also agree that it is an individual choice, in that I do not want the State determining my morals, or my decisions, and I do not want to determine others, either.The whole abortion thing seems quite weird, in that the same groups who are against it, on moral grounds, seem to also be aginst a lot of the other options to stop getting pregnant, thus pushing the Church State agenda of increasing the population to serve the state and church, which is what I think has been there all along.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
        .. as in the mantra "be fruitful and multiply..."
        but no comments about when to stop or even take the foot off the gas... Six Billion? Seven? Ten? Twenty?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  nickursis 4 years, 3 months ago
          Interesting you say that, I had this group recommended to me by the Facebook bot:
          https://www.facebook.com/groups/22081...

          Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT)
          They apparently pursue a philosophy that believes humans have done their damage and that they ought to help the world by not reproducing, thus leading to self extinction. They actually seem fairly well thought out about it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 3 months ago
    I've never accepted this, to me, strange and abhorrent obsession over dead bodies and the insane costs paid by family members to preserve the dead body in exorbitant coffins and vaults and memorialize that body's place in the earth with grave markers and at least yearly pilgrimages to the burial site for the rest of your life. I've told the story before of getting stuck with my cousin having to bury our Grandmother's amputated leg at her gravesite so it would be their when she died, and she would thereby be able to enter heaven with both limbs.

    I've told my sons to cremate me, have a memorial if they wish, find a good trout stream in some mountains and throw my ashes in it, then remember me in any way they wish. If someone could make an ethical (Objectivist only) use of part of my body, I wouldn't mind, but I'm afraid that this old body is past the use-by-date. It seems to me that it's the height of self aggrandizement to place an obligation of your body on your family to preserve, protect, and worship after death. It's almost neolithic.

    I don't see anymore worth to a dead (for whatever reason) fetus, and if a researcher can use it for some benefit for future people, why not. Death is a part of life from conception on and there's no guarantee either prior to birth or after. The only reason I can see for all of this turmoil is some religionists beliefs that a supernatural being somewhere has a spare soul sitting around that he wants to stick in it and some of their beliefs that the bodies go into a grave and wait for the end when god pulls them out of the ground and restores them or some such stuff.

    In some ways this argument seems to align with PETA's objections to what we do with animals and animals' bodies.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Flootus5 4 years, 3 months ago
      I have expressed the desire that when I go, the mortal remains are quickly taken miles out in the desert (why not Obama's new Basin and Range National Monument) and dumped in a wash. The coyotes can then pull it apart and scatter the bones about. Back to nature, man.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
        ... assuming there aren't enough government laws against that kind of thing, which would keep your heirs in litigation or prison for a LONG time...
        I support YOUR idea of 'freedom of choice' in such matters.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Flootus5 4 years, 3 months ago
          Yeah, laws already exist prohibiting such behavior. I guess coroner and police reports so that they know that foul play was not involved. Now, there's a thought, hmmmm
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 3 months ago
        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by H6163741 4 years, 3 months ago
      I am totally with you. My husband goes to "visit" his dead father occasionally at the cemetery, and I've never understood this. Pay respects, okay; but visit?
      BTW - Sadly, animals are treated much more compassionately than fetuses (feti?) these days
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by livefree-NH 4 years, 3 months ago
        My dad's buried at Arlington and I have been struggling with visiting the site again. I haven't been there since the burial in 2003. Incidentally, a lot of his 'parts' were donated and transplanted too, not sure when harvested. Hmmm.

        The only brain activity going on about him now is in my head, my family's, and others, certainly not in his. So why would I visit that place? Like I said, struggling.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 3 months ago
          Depends if you're going for something in yourself, or doing it for him or some other external reason. Either way, he' not there anymore, but I sympathize with your loss.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by strugatsky 4 years, 3 months ago
      The fact that Planned Parenthood is doing it secretly makes is reminiscent of stealing bodies from graves a couple of hundred years back.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 3 months ago
        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by strugatsky 4 years, 3 months ago
          Given that PP is a publicly funded organization, it should have public accountability. I know, I know, I'm in the wrong country...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 3 months ago
            I didn't say anything about any public funding. There shouldn't be any. So what would be your opinion if they were privately or patient funded?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by strugatsky 4 years, 3 months ago
              That would be completely different. I am not against abortions or against using body parts for the benefit of science, with the individual's prior (obviously) consent. But as long as people that are opposed to abortion, on religious or whatever basis, are forced to pay for a public organization that performs them, these people should have a right to know what is going on and have a right to approve or disapprove the organization's actions. And I agree, there shouldn't be any public extortion, eh, I meant, funding.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 3 months ago
                stru; I get your point, but I think that regardless of the reasoning or rational or amount of information provided to the groups or individuals that oppose abortion, there simply is no level of acceptance or reasonableness that can be reached with them as long as it involves in anyway, abortion.

                Any information they obtain will be utilized, twisted, and propagandized to continue to attempt to force and control the rest of us. That is the history and won't change till reason can override the superstition and supernatural. That is reality and I prefer to just ignore the irrational and any of their supposedly reasonable requests or demands.

                I'd like to get rid of all government funding, but the irrational certainly take enough of it for use in their efforts and would resist any effort to get all of their information published. A line of non-compliance with the irrational must be drawn.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by strugatsky 4 years, 3 months ago
                  I agree with you. For religious people, this topic is pure emotion; objectivism has no place in it. Too bad. I think that good, valid reasons exist for both having and not having abortions, but the subject is completely outside of the bounds of reason.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                    Strugatsky, I completely disagree with your assessment of the pro-life position. In fact, the reverse is true. The pro-life position continues to be substantiated by scientific discovery that has proven the presence of brain activity as early as six weeks, the ability for a premature baby to survive far earlier that was ever imagined at the time of Roe v Wade decision.

                    In the face of this scientific discovery, the pro-abortion side has but one argument: "it's woman's body". This would be true, if she were killing herself, but she's killing a baby (forcing her judgement on another without being granted consent).

                    Can the pro-abortion side confirm when life begins if not at conception?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by strugatsky 4 years, 3 months ago
                      I should have added that many of militant abortionists also see this as a "religion". After all, we know that communism evolved into a religion - complete with their god in a mausoleum. That said, "it's woman's body" is not the only argument. For me personally, the fact that there is detectable brain activity is not in any way a proof of conscience. Certainly the chicken that you have for lunch has at least that much. On the other hand, to breed dozens of unwanted children (per sow), often without any means to take care of them (or the breeders themselves), is the real crime. Of course, I would rather see the government getting out of the breeding business altogether and people using much better methods of birth control than abortion, but I'm dreaming again...
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
                      AG, the question is moot... life begins at the point where people agree it begins. There is NO 'scientific' measure of 'life's beginning.'
                      Stop it!

                      Actually, I've often pointed out that the embryo/fetus is quite accurately a parasite to the carrier's body, too. Advocating Parasites' Rights?
                      :)
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by strugatsky 4 years, 3 months ago
                      And here's probably the most persuasive pro-abortion argument of all - you should be praising God for abortion - as the government pays parasites to reproduce, since Roe vs Wade there would have been tens of millions of parasites begetting hundreds of millions of newly hatched parasites. You and I would have been forced to supported them. And aside from our desire to do so, we just would not have been able to support that many stomachs. America would have collapsed a generation ago.
                      Of course, the government has found a solution to this dilemma - let them reproduce elsewhere and come here already in pupal stage, so that we can feed them. So, I suppose, America hasn't been saved after all...
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 4 years, 3 months ago
    I have part of a dead person in my knee. The provider of that part to the surgeon was paid a handsome sum. The family of the person who started out with the part and died got nothing. I have a problem with that. We are told to donate our body parts due to some altruistic requirement...then this happens. If I could donate my body in order to help fund my grandkids' college educations I'd do it without hesitation.

    That aside, what we are talking about here is a problem that I see as one of our biggest problems in this country - a failure to recognize the value and sovereignty of life. This, in my opinion, is part of the foundation for Objectivism. Our lives, our bodies, and our minds are our own...

    If you think our society values babies any more after their born I have a bridge to sell you. Our society (our government) doesn't give a rat's ass about children.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Technocracy 4 years, 3 months ago
      They don't give a damn about people period.

      However that does not stop them from using "Its for the Children" as a rallying cry for any silliness they want to pick your pockets to fund.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by xthinker88 4 years, 3 months ago
      Tissue harvesting is one of the biggest profit centers for the large hospital systems. A friend of mine was on a tissue team and quoted me the prices once. Amazing how much the hospital get paid for a dib of this and a dab of that. But it's illegal to pay the families anything.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 3 months ago
      Number one the dividing line is fetus and viable.

      As for the last sentence the originator of that thought put it this way. Our society cares more about dogs than children. Robert Heinlein wrote that. It was true then and more true now and for the same objectively provable reasons.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DeadRight 4 years, 3 months ago
        You'll save the whales, you'll save the seals, you'll save whatever's cute and squeals.
        But you'll kill that thing that's in the womb, would not want no baby boom.
        Steve Taylor, Song writer.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by H6163741 4 years, 3 months ago
          We've got a program for saving the earth; while unborn children are denied their right to birth. One baby's blessed; another cursed. Have we made this world better or worse now that the life of a tree comes first? -Russ Lee
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 4 years, 3 months ago
    This undeserved smear has already been debunked. http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/15/pla...

    AR was pro-choice herself, and so am I. At least up to the 13th-15th week, when the cerebrum develops. Once a fetus has enough of a brain to be a moral agent, then I'll consider him/her sovereign.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
      And actually, no the article you cite is yet another attempt by the left to justify and unjustifyable position.

      Medical advancements have not come from embryonic stem cell research. Quite the opposite. The advancements have come from umbilical stem cells and the reprogramming of adult stems. Embryonic has been a pipe dream for year... it's somewhat akin to man-made climate change research.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
      But we can now detect brain activity at six weeks. Why the arbitrary 13-15 week? Science has continued to demonstrate that what we thought we new about development in the womb was incorrect.

      The ability to survive outside the womb is a straw man argument. A full-term baby can't survive outside the womb without on its own.

      Life begins when life begins... by definition, that's at conception.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jdg 4 years, 3 months ago
        Actually, the egg and sperm are "alive" before they even meet.

        But they're not intelligent life, nor is an embryo.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
          So now intelligence is the bar for life to be valued?

          If life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by jdg 4 years, 3 months ago
            Wrong question. The RIGHT to life comes from intelligence.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
              This, too, is a very dangerous and slippery slope because it is a subjective measurement. Do we draw the line at an IQ of 80 or 60 or 100 or do we draw the line at the existence of intelligence? This gets even shadier if one includes psychological characteristics or illnesses such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Lou Gehrig's, etc. The argument is that life isn't valued for being life, but for it's quality. I would caution against this argument as it is precisely the same rationale used by Hitler and the Nazis in WW II. It proposes the notion that some humans get to subjectively determine what constitutes as life. I advise anyone considering such to tread carefully as they may find themselves on the outside looking in one day.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
        "Life begins when life begins... by definition, that's at conception. "....

        That's YOUR definition... please cite consensus views on "when life begins"... I can't seem to find any agreement on it... just a lot of people agreeing on a lot of different points... fertilization, implantation, X-number of weeks after implantation, etc...

        Groups of people Agreeing on something is NOT proof or definitional! If you can see the difference.

        If you disagree, again, the 'discussion' is moot.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 4 years, 3 months ago
    I have to ask the same questions. Again this is A=A

    "IF" this offends you why would you even remotely think Abortion is right?

    Anyone who is "FOR" Abortion and Planned parenthood, should be PROUD of these actions regardless, strictly on the basis of the usage of "worthless" tissue being used to "benefit" women who want to abort, and science who wants to experiment.

    If however, these is in anyway offensive to you, then you might need to re-think your view on planned parenthood, and abortion all together.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 4 years, 3 months ago
    OK, and now for the Objectivist view:
    We have an attitude that you can't sell human tissue. Many suffer needlessly because of that attitude. I do not think that this would lead to taking a fetus to late term and then abort as an organ factory. However, I am no fan of PP and I counsel wherever I can against abortion. It is not my decision to make for another, but knowledge is a powerful thing. Women need knowledge where they think they have no alternative. This kind of thinking leads to hospitals profiting to the detriment of a family who lost a loved one or the patient directly.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 3 months ago
      "can't sell human tissue" isn't the root of contention. The root is that people aren't aware of where their "trash" is going. The women have no knowledge that PP is profiting off their waste.

      Also, PP has no license to sell body parts or organs. These sales are something they've done on their own and in secret.

      The Chinese harvest organs from their prison population. What PP is doing, because of how they are doing it, is far more vile that what China is doing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
        The bigger point is that those sales are ILLEGAL! What this woman is admitting to is systematic and organizational law-breaking of such scope that merits not only an immediate termination of all taxpayer funding, but criminal indictments throughout the organization. The extent of this admission should be enough to shut down PP NOW.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Mamaemma 4 years, 3 months ago
      K, I am sorry to say that I am convinced that there are more that a few women who would take a fetus to late term, even delivery, and then sell the baby for its organs.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
        Unfortunately, I agree. When one looks at what's happening in the world today, it seems depravity knows no bounds. It's as if the moral compass of mankind has been destroyed... or at the very least severely damaged.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Mamaemma 4 years, 3 months ago
          I think depravity has always existed and always will. There will always be depraved and disgusting individuals. What is really depraved is a society that no longer shuns and punishes this kind of depravity. Not to mention that Planned Parenthood is stealing.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
            Yes, there's never been a shortage of depravity, but 60% abortion rate in black community is definitely a new phenomena... brought on by liberal policies.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Mamaemma 4 years, 3 months ago
              Am I the only one who would rather see some of these babies aborted than see them born and treated like garbage and bankrupt our country?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 3 months ago
                Not at all and it has nothing to do with race. First off I believe in safe sex and birth control methods. Second abortion of the fetus.
                Third none of the late term, partial delivery when the fetus is viable.

                I would also look at the welfare baby factories and be in favor of tubal ligation and vasectomies after the first ''accident'' and before receiving any assistance.

                Speaking in a general welfare of the nation way.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by romcentee 4 years, 3 months ago
                  It's backwards. Instead of increasing assistance
                  for each new baby, assistance should be decreased if you have another baby. Presto - birth control.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by cjferraris 4 years, 3 months ago
                    Actually, just freeze it to the number of children that you have prior to coming onto assistance. Just tell them that's what you get while you're on it. Any more children won't increase the amount you receive.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by blackswan 4 years, 3 months ago
                You sound like a liberal with that statement. If the incentives for perverse behavior were removed, we'd have less perverse behavior. What's needed is the elimination of the welfare state. At that point, you'll see much more appropriate behavior, and the slaughter will be greatly diminished, as well as the born children being "treated like garbage and bankrupting our country."
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by H6163741 4 years, 3 months ago
                The problem seems to be that, now that abortion is readily available at any stage in pregnancy, people seem to be less responsible about birth control. How else does one explain the increasing abortions every year? I would like to see birth control made available for free. But I do agree with you in part; I would rather not support "welfare babies" either.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by TheRealBill 4 years, 3 months ago
                  "...people seem..." is hardly objective. Do you have data and analysis to support the assertion that availability of abortions has decreased personal responsibility?

                  There are many factors that could cause it - if indeed the rate were increasing. It requires a multivariate analysis to even start to get at the root of it. Anytime you find yourself saying or implying there are no other causes you've likely committed a serious error in logic.

                  For example, the increasing welfare state could easily be the cause. The increasing nanny state could as well. Poverty can also be a significant driver in that the data does show abortions, as well as many other issues, have a strong correlation with income level. That all assumes the rate is rising. The data show it is not. The data shows abortions are decreasing.

                  For example:
                  In 2011, approximately 1.06 million abortions took place in the U.S., down from an estimated 1.21 million abortions in 2008, 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S. (AGI).

                  Based on available state-level data, an estimated 984,000 abortions took place in 2013—down from an estimated 1.02 million abortions in 2012.

                  Objectively speaking, abortions are on the decrease.

                  Some other bits the data tells us that counter many claim about who is having them. Nearly 3/4ths of abortions are had by people claiming a religious affiliation.

                  Only 56% of abortions are for single, non-cohabitating women. 69% are "economically disadvantaged". Self-identification as protestants accounted for 37% and Catholic accounted for 28%.

                  About half of all pregnancies in the U.S. were unplanned. Of those, only 40% were aborted. According to the CDC in 2011, unmarried women accounted for 85.5% of all abortions.

                  When you look at this data some other data makes sense, and isn't at all racist. Yes, black women are nearly four times more likely to have an abortion. However, that doesn't mean it is racial. Given the above we know that being a 20-something, single, non-cohabitating woman greatly increases the chances you'll be aborting. And yet this is the category a great many black women find themselves in. Thus it should not be at all shocking for the aforementioned result.

                  We can also learn the assertion that those aborting are simply irresponsible is also not indicated by the data: only 8% of women having an abortion were not using any form of birth control. Granted that is self-reported data, but it does get broken down into more fine-grained such as frequency, etc. but this comment is already fairly long.

                  Given the motives and mentality of the American Intelligentsia, be vary cautious of what things "seem" to be like. Looking into the data very often shows the inverse of what is claimed.

                  Summary: Abortion is not on the rise, and there is no correlation between an increasing legal availability of it and the incidence or rate of it. As there is no correlation, I think that should pretty well eliminate the notion that increasing legal availability of it causes abortion to increase.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                    There are several flaws in your analysis. The first is the historical starting point.

                    There is no question when the data line is extended back to Roe v Wade that the availability, coupled with pop cultural acceptance that followed let to a profound increase in rate of abortion.

                    You also use aggregated data versus demographic. The percent of black abortions has increased (as unwed pregnancy increased) to catastrophic levels.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by TheRealBill 4 years, 3 months ago
                      If there is no question, then post the data from you simply must have it to make a rational claim as such, no? Oh and do account for population growth.

                      And just so you know, in 2011 the number of abortions hit the lowest point since 1973. So clearly your argument here is also invalid. You can even go to strongly anti-abortion sites and learn this fact.

                      Define "catastrophic".

                      And you clearly missed the demographic data. Look into the income level and married vs. single, non-cohabitating data and you'll see the assertion it is racial is unfounded. You would also learn that the abortion rate among blacks has indeed followed the overall trend that whites and non-black minorities have all experienced in the last three decades.

                      Aggregated or demographic (which is btw also aggregate data) is irrelevant to the fact that abortions levels are the lowest they've been in three decades of decline. The fact is your assertion that they are rising is utterly false.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                        First, aggregate across the entire population and aggregate within a demographic are two completely different sets of data analysis.

                        Your data on the abortion numbers since1973 is inaccurate on multiple levels (in terms absolute numbers as well as within the black community).

                        This line of debate, however, misses the point. It's as if we were arguing over exact number of Jews killed in the Holocaust as the determining factor in whether or not it was wrong to kill them in the first place.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  Technocracy 4 years, 3 months ago
                  There is no "Free"

                  Someone has to pay, and for "Free" that means the taxpayer. No thank you.

                  TANSTAAFL
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment deleted.
                    • Posted by  $  Technocracy 4 years, 3 months ago
                      Why should taxpayers fund either ?

                      Self responsibility
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by H6163741 4 years, 3 months ago
                        If everyone acted responsibly, there would be far fewer abortions. As this is not the case, I am proposing we do something to reduce the number of victims. Also, I don't want to pay for any more welfare babies....
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  Technocracy 4 years, 3 months ago
                          What is your proposal?
                          Birth control implants for welfare recipients as long as they are on welfare?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by H6163741 4 years, 3 months ago
                            Considering I have heard numerous, 1st person stories about welfare recipients having babies to get more money, that is a GREAT idea. If our dollars have to support the kid, at least we should have some say in how many...
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by H6163741 4 years, 3 months ago
                              I kid (although it does make some logical sense). At no time have I proposed mandatory birth control; simply free distribution.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by  $  Technocracy 4 years, 3 months ago
                                Fair enough.

                                But again, it is not free. We have to pay for it.

                                Government and government funding should NOT be in the business of social engineering. They should be as minimally intrusive as possible, and no larger than needed.

                                A fantasy, I know, but one of my favorite ones.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by TheRealBill 4 years, 3 months ago
                      It is actually unclear as to which would be cheaper.

                      Various forms of birth control have been shown to have ongoing medical issues that crop up over time. Given that such a large portion of those who would be getting free birth control would also be on medicaid and other taxpayer paid medical services the cost of these knock-on effects (depression, weight gain, hormonal imbalance, all the way up to mental diseases such as the dementia categories) may well eclipse the relative cheapness of an abortion.

                      Even given free access we don't have supportable reasons to conclude that it would significantly lower the incidence of abortion among the economically disadvantaged. There are cultural and religious issues surrounding effective use of various forms of birth control. The data shows it isn't the availability of it, rather it is the consistency of use that is a strong driver of it's efficacy. Making it free would not address the religious, cultural, and habitual aspects - the strongest indicators.

                      As a result we could well end up paying for both if we were to agree the government should provide them.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 4 years, 3 months ago
        this is a fallacy. A live baby is worth way more than the sum of a fetus' parts. That's capitalism. If you want to make this about celebrating human life, we can do all we can. But I do not buy that most humans want to end life.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by TheRealBill 4 years, 3 months ago
          "But I do not buy that most humans want to end life."
          As noted in a previos post, the data backs you up. Less than half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
            Expect in the black community.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by TheRealBill 4 years, 3 months ago
              Again, not backed up by the data. Even those claiming abortion is a "racist institution" don't make such ludicrous claims.

              Post the data which shows 51% or more of the "black community" (there is no such thing, btw) wants to end human life. If the data supports it, so be it. But the data won't show it, so I expect no such posting of data from you.

              How so? Because you are confusing a high rate of a subset with the results in the subset. Black women account for a larger proportion than the population, yes. But they also account for the larger portion of unplanned pregnancies, and for your assertion to be true more than half of all pregnancies among black women would have to be aborted. That is factually not the case.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                Ok again, we're getting into the weeds and missing the bigger point.

                As I mentioned in previous post, it's like arguing total number of Jews killed in the Holocaust as a threshold bar to determine if killing them was wrong in the first place.

                For the sake of the discussion, let's say 35% of black pregnancies nationally, and 60% in NY, end in abortion. Is that ok? Is that not a problem? Does that not lead to the devaluing of human life?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by TheRealBill 4 years, 3 months ago
                  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.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                    The data cited is from the CDC. It may not be appealing, but it's factual.

                    And yes, we all subscribe to an ideology. Mine, and over 50% of the rest of the country happen to be pro-life.

                    I'm unclear on your position. Are you ok with planned parenthood killing unborn children and profiting from selling the resulting parts?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  Technocracy 4 years, 3 months ago
                  We can hardly be missing the bigger point since you never actually made a point at the start of the thread. You keep changing your "main point" every time you get push back.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
      The larger issue is the absolute devaluing of human life that results from looking at an unborn child as a tissue mass.

      It's remarkable that public get exorcised by the death of Michael Brown, but blissfully ignorant of the true genocide of blacks through abortion. When 60%+ of unborn black babies in NYC (and 50% nationally) are terminated, there's a problem.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 4 years, 3 months ago
        I value human life as well. As a result, your attitude does not value it, but mystifies it. If I cannot sell body parts or tissue then the direct result of your policy is needless death of those who benefit by research. She has a God given duty to carry a fetus to term? that is making her a slave. How is that valuing human life?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
          Please provide examples of life-saving drugs/devices that resulted from baby parts... it doesn't exist.

          A slave to the baby? Yes, a woman does have a responsibility to protect the human in her body. Her body is her choice, but she has no right to kill another.

          If I'm driving my car alone and decide to run off a cliff, that's my prerogative (my body, my car). If, however, I have a passenger in the car and I run us both off the cliff without their consent, I've committed murder.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 4 years, 3 months ago
            your analogy fails. I do not have a duty to support anyone. Your car example just is not the same. Each individual has a choice to get in the car with me or not. As long as the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, the fetus' rights do not supersede the females' rights. You and I can counsel women to not choose abortion. But you have no right to compel her to be a slave to your Ethics.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
              So, let's just change one detail... you force someone into your car against their will and drive you both off a cliff, you've committed murder.

              Either way, you've committed murder in the eyes of the law. You did not have the consent/right to kill your passenger.

              If being a burden were the only bar necessary to kill another, where would it end? My aging parents are really a burden, I think I'll kill them so I'm not a slave to their needs. My handicapped child is such a burden, I think I'll kill him, so I'm not a slave to taking care of him.

              At what point would you draw the line?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Bethesda-gal 4 years, 3 months ago
            This is where many women are terrified the law is headed - that if they take drugs, drink, etc they'll be prosecuted for harming the fetus. I have, in my reproductive years, been a staunch pro-choice advocate. "Keep your laws off my body" Now that I'm older and technology has improved to be able to sustain increasingly younger fetuses outside the womb, my feelings are shifting. Do I want the govt outlawing what I can do with my own body ? No ! So should that force me to consent to a 'delivery' of a preemie instead of what I feel should remain my choice to terminate a pregnancy ? But do I have a legal obligation to the health of the fetus or am Ina slave to the fetus ? Do men even get a vote since they can't be pregnant ?
            I have many more questions than answers.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by H6163741 4 years, 3 months ago
              I thought that drinking, drugs, etc while pregnant was already illegal under child endangerment laws, but I could be wrong. This to me represents the ultimate in hypocrisy. It's only "a woman's body" for abortion purposes.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Technocracy 4 years, 3 months ago
        The stats you are pointing to as genocide are incorrectly labelled.

        Genocide includes an outside force performing the killings against the will of the person. In the case of abortion, since it isn't a procedure forced on someone, Genocide is inapplicable. These women are having this done voluntarily, so Racial Suicide would be a far more accurate label.

        The real problem is lack of responsibility from the individuals concerned producing all these unwanted pregnancies.

        Many methods of birth control exist, from abstinence to "morning after" drugs. Nor is the most common method (the pill) expensive, under $10 at Walmart.

        The inability to exercise personal responsibility to not become pregnant, or impregnate someone else is what needs to be addressed.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
          So, the baby has consented to be killed? The woman doesn't have the right to kill a child.

          If I'm driving my car alone and decide to run off a cliff, that's my prerogative (my body, my car). If, however, I have a passenger in the car and I run us both off the cliff without their consent, I've committed murder.

          I completely agree that the sky-rocketing rate of abortion in the black community is the result of lack of responsibility brought on by liberal policies, but the fact remains that millions of black babies are being killed. The numbers are exceeded only by those perpetrated by other socialist/communist policies.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Technocracy 4 years, 3 months ago
            Your position is contradictory.

            If you acknowledge that the rate of abortion in the black community is the result of lack of responsibility on their part, then it IS NOT GENOCIDE. That is a label used deliberately because of the emotional charge it carries. The implication being that a race other than black is deliberately targeting them. Which facts do not support.

            Question for you..............

            Why does it matter what race is being aborted???

            Either abortion is wrong for all, or it is right for all.

            You cannot pick and choose your morality based on race.
            Race is a human social construct, not species differentiation.

            Oddly enough, I dislike abortion, but my reasons are far different than yours.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 3 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 3 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by H6163741 4 years, 3 months ago
      I'm confused. You believe abortion is "killing a child," but you wouldn't propose legislation against it? So are you saying it's okay to kill a child as long as you're not the one doing it?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 3 months ago
        I'm against passing laws to solve problems. It is that mind-set that has created so many laws on the books that you can be convicted if you do or if you don't. Abortion laws are like Prohibition. People will do it whether or not there is a law against it. In the case of Prohibition people got drunk on the worst kind of rotgut. Everyone knows about the self inflicted or bad abortions. The most important aspect, is that if you want to have and retain a free society, you must be willing to refrain from imposing your beliefs on others. This gives you the right to say no, but also gives someone else the right to say no also.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -1
          Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
          So, should we terminate laws making murder illegal because that won't stop murder?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 3 months ago
            Rational laws pertaining to the interaction between people have to do with the use of force. Murder is a clear-cut case of the use of force. Unless you consider a fetus as a living person, no use of force is being used and since it's the woman's body, it is her decision as to whether to abort or not. At least that is the explanation of those who believe in abortion. My opinion is that conception creates a potential human which develops into a viable human in the womb. In this case there is no clear cut case one way or the other. Since this is Galt's Gulch let me present a few bits of the Rand person's opinion. "An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet living..." She makes a valid point. I happen to disagree with her, but I think it's better to leave the decision to the individuals involved rather than impose my will on everyone who may want the right to abort.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
              So, at what point does life begin?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by hattrup 4 years, 3 months ago
                each sperm looks alive to me. but not human.
                beginning of human life is arbitrary.

                with todays and tomorrow technology, we could create and/or "continue" the life of each sperm and egg so they could all be considered "sacred"
                (cue Monty Python...). Conception is just as arbitrary as individual sperm or eggs, first cell divide, blastula development, nervous system and complexity, etc.

                This every changing shade of gray area should be delegated to the person with the eggs, sperm,
                and/or both.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                  The beginning of life is no arbitrary than the end of life. When it begins is the fundamental question in this issue.

                  If life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? Once it begins, no one has the right to arbitrarily end it simply for convenience sake.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 4 years, 3 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by strugatsky 4 years, 3 months ago
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 4 years, 3 months ago
        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by strugatsky 4 years, 3 months ago
          " callously indifferent to the agony inflicted on a completely innocent being within minutes of birth." -- Abortions are not performed on babies "within minutes of birth."

          " to prolong the torture of that unborn child" -- Typically, the fetus is killed first by a puncture through the head before it is removed. Whether upper, lower, or any other part is crushed after that or not, really does not matter from the point of view of "prolong[ing] the torture of that unborn child.

          "If a child within days of breathing open air is only "fetal tissue,"' -- Again, abortions (legal ones) are not performed on fetuses/babies/children that are "within days of breathing open air".

          "Some "pro-choice" (I have to laugh at that label, because these people are against the choice of a woman to bear live children)" -- Since when did the "pro-choice" camp prohibit or was in anyway against "a woman to bear live children"?

          "have actually said a mother shouldn't be tried for murder if she kills her child before its first birthday" -- Don't know where you're finding a fringe group like that, but I'm sure that one can always find fringe groups, if he look hard enough. I seem to be coming across a fringe group that insists the the Universe is 6,500 years old...

          And I'm not too clear on the significance of the motorcyclists to this issue...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DrZarkov99 4 years, 3 months ago
            I'll be brief. Abortions performed within minutes of birth are in fact done. Partial birth abortions are legal up to the point an infant takes its first breath. Abortions performed within days of taking first breath are done, called late term abortion. Pro choice is code for pro abortion, because it sounds so much nicer. Planned Parenthood clinics rarely provide prenatal care for women who actually choose to give birth, pushing them off on Medicaid. The quote about killing babies within the first year came from a prominent women's rights figure in the UK, on a BBC broadcast, hardly a "fringe."
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by strugatsky 4 years, 3 months ago
              Under normal circumstances, we were not talking about partial birth abortions, but rather abortions within the first trimester or thereabouts. Late term abortions are typically done in extra ordinary circumstances (mother life, etc.)

              Yes, Pro Choice is a code word for Pro Abortion, but you're jumping a huge divide here by saying that Pro Choice (or Pro Abortion) are against giving birth, even if most of PP's business is doing abortions. No doubt many of PP boses and employees have children...

              As to a "prominent women's rights' figure in the UK" -- yep, you got a fringe group!

              The point that I was trying to make was not to either support or not support abortions. My point was the form of argument or discussion that you presented.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
              " Planned Parenthood clinics rarely provide prenatal care for women who actually choose to give birth, pushing them off on Medicaid."

              Link, please?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
                Or, from the pdf I linked above....
                (in dollars) out of their billion-dollar balance sheet...

                STI/STD Testing & Treatment
                STI Tests, Women and Men 3,728,111
                Genital Warts (HPV) Treatments 42,933
                HIV Tests, Women and Men 697,680
                Other Treatments 584
                4,469,308
                Contraception
                Reversible Contraception Patients, Women 2,129,855
                Emergency Contraception Kits 1,590,133
                Female Sterilization Procedures 821
                Vasectomy Patients 3,749
                3,724,558
                Cancer Screening and Prevention
                Pap Tests 492,365
                HPV Vaccinations 38,535
                Breast Exams/ Breast Care 549,804
                Colposcopy Procedures 37,683
                LOOP/LEEP Procedures
                2,273
                Cryotherapy Procedures 920
                1,121,580
                Other Women’s Health Services
                Pregnancy Tests 1,148,249
                Prenatal Services 19,506
                1,167,755
                >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                Abortion Services
                Abortion Procedures 327,166
                <<<<<<<<<<<<<
                Other Services
                Family Practice Services, Women and Men
                * 41,359
                Adoption Referrals to Other Agencies 2,197
                Urinary Tract Infections Treatments 52,947
                Other Procedures, Women and Men
                *** 26,805
                123,308
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Temlakos 4 years, 3 months ago
    Well, that's an interesting question. Rand advocated for abortion on demand, on the ground that it's not human until it's born. But the OP sees something about this that's discomfiting.

    Now you have to ask yourselves: how long has this been going on?

    I make no secret. I say it's human from the moment a zygote forms. That the law does not treat it that way, leads straight back to the ancient Roman practice of exposure-at-birth.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
      I fundamentally disagree with Rand on this issue, and now science has proven her wrong.

      We now know that EKG can detect brain activity as early as six weeks, and premature babies can survive much earlier that thought.

      If life doesn't begin at conception, someone please prove to me when it does.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Temlakos 4 years, 3 months ago
        Come to think of it, I think Rand got a lot of things wrong because she would not keep up with the science. Branden once said she seemed ignorant of any advance beyond the work of Sir Isaac Newton.

        Do you remember the brouhaha when she said, "After all, Nathan, the theory of evolution is only an hypothesis?"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 4 years, 3 months ago
          hey! women here! I am not a slave to cells
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
            Slave to cells? Not sure of the comment and didn't want to misinterpret.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 4 years, 3 months ago
              a fetus is dependent on a female host. I am not a slave to anyone. no birth control?! I cannot engage in sex unless I am willing to give birth?! nonsense
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by H6163741 4 years, 3 months ago
                Okay; but at least be properly informed - Mandatory ultrasound before abortion. You will not see "cells." You will see arms, legs, fingers, toes, a beating heart and a functioning brain.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                A baby is dependent on a parent. No full-term baby can survive on its own. If life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin?

                If you're driving your car alone and decide to run off a cliff, that's your prerogative (your body, your car). If, however, you have a passenger in the car and you run both off the cliff without their consent, you've committed murder. The car was your vessel, but it was carrying another life.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 4 years, 3 months ago
                  Riding in a car is not the same as supporting completely a fetus. If you insist on this argument, it is clear that you have no philosophical interest in discussing this within reason, but you are pushing your belief system. That's fine, just call it what it is. From the moment of conception, a woman becomes a slave to your belief system. Trust me, if males could get pregnant this conversation would not be happening.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                    No, the debate would still be the same. Are you in favor of protecting life or not. This "it's a women's body" nonsense is just that. The car analogy is an perfect analogy, because the car is your, but it serves as a vessel for carrying another life. The reason it's disliked by those in favor of abortion is because is spotlights the flaw in the "woman's body" argument.

                    If life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by TheRealBill 4 years, 3 months ago
                      You keep asking this as if it were some wooden stake to a vampire, but it begs a question making this one meaningless: What is "life?"

                      Until you define what you mean by "life begins", your question has no value because it can not be answered.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                        It's the single most important question in the debate. If life begins at conception, then abortion is taking a life. If it doesn't, the pro-abortion crowd needs to prove when it does begin.

                        So, until it's answered, I again ask, when does life begin?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by TheRealBill 4 years, 3 months ago
                          It is an irrelevant question w/o a definition of the terms. If it is so important, define it. Many people have or use different meanings to the generic term "life", so simply trusting that everyone agrees with you on what the term means is arrogance at worst and ignorance at best. So I ask again, what exactly do you mean by "life"? Without that, the question can not be answered at all with consistency.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
                            Careful there. The biological definition of life includes one-celled organisms who can replicate from their own biological material. Viruses are a grey area because they cause the death of their host when they replicate through parasitism. If you are going to compare a fertilized egg to either, you're going to have to come down on the side with bacteria - which is the side of life.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  Technocracy 4 years, 3 months ago
                  Your analogy fails.

                  Setting aside the question of when a fetus becomes a child, when life begins, or any of the other differences.

                  Driving a car off a cliff with a passenger is murder for them and suicide for you. That is two deaths, not one.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                    I find it very difficult to believe that someone of your intelligence truly believes what you wrote. The analogy absolutely holds and exemplifies the falacy of the my body my decision position. The woman's body is merely the vessel carrying an unborn child. She has no more right to end that life than the driver has to end that of her passenger.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  Technocracy 4 years, 3 months ago
                      Let me try and explain my position on this to you.

                      Western societies have 2 extremely strong taboos about the taking of human life.

                      One is murder - the unlawful killing of another human.
                      The other is Suicide - the taking of your own life.

                      For your analogy, that would require the person driving the car off the cliff to jump the hurdle of both of those strong taboos at once. Something that movies like Thelma & Louise aside, only occurs rarely.

                      That is a major flaw in your analogy.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  Technocracy 4 years, 3 months ago
                      Another reason that the car over the cliff analogy doesn't work is where that murder line comes in.

                      To many people a fetus is not considered a child until after it is born.
                      To many other people the line is at the third trimester.
                      To still others the line is after the 1st trimester.
                      To others (like you) the line is conception.

                      Where the individual draws that line is the real heart of this issue.

                      To someone like you the car/cliff analogy works because of where you draw the line.

                      To many others the analogy does not work because they would not consider the abortion a murder, based upon the development stage.

                      This of course, ignores the suicide aspect of you driving the car over the cliff in the first place. I think its likely a safe assumption that you are against suicide strongly, based on your position on when life begins.

                      So tell me does the car/cliff analogy still work for you, even though you would be committing suicide in the process?

                      I don't like abortions either, you might be surprised how little we differ on that. The difference is that I consider it Immoral to force my beliefs on others.

                      We all own ourselves and have free will.
                      I refuse to compromise those two principles.
                      Therefore I do not force my beliefs on this issue as requirements on others.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                        But you focus is on the "force@ being applied to the mother without regard to the force being applied by the mother to the baby.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  Technocracy 4 years, 3 months ago
                          Incorrect.

                          I acknowledge the force being applied to the fetus, but I also acknowledge that the mother has rights, included protection from force.

                          On my balance, the mother as a fully developed being is entitled to more protections than a potential being.

                          Your position weighs the scale the other way.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by blackswan 4 years, 3 months ago
          It IS a hypothesis. A theory is something that's PROVEN. Being able to cook up an explanation for some data is NOT a proof.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Temlakos 4 years, 3 months ago
            Well, to be more specific, a hypothesis becomes a robust theory when it predicts an outcome, and that outcome comes to pass. But when predictions fail, the theory must change or die.

            Well, the theory of evolution predicts transitional forms that we have never found. The Missing Links stay missing. And it also predicts constant improvement in life, and that also has failed.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by H6163741 4 years, 3 months ago
          D'oh! I actually agree with her. I have never understood how evolution was supposed to make logical sense.Where is the evidence of the "transitional" organisms? How do we explain organisms that need ALL of their parts in order to function? I believe someone or something must have started the ball rolling, but I do not believe that this someone or something has any interest in our daily lives.
          BTW - If anyone can recommend a book that logically explains evolution, please post it. I want to follow the most logical point of view, and I wouldn't mind being proven wrong. (It would certainly make my life easier!)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Temlakos 4 years, 3 months ago
            Let me recommend a book that logically explains what the fossil record really is, how it took its present form, how long that took, and how long ago that happened. "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood," by Walter T. Brown, Jr., PhD. The great fossil strata are hydrologically sorted layers of silt from the most violent event this earth has ever known. In which a subcrustal ocean, probably two miles deep and fifty miles below ground, broke containment and spilled out. It eroded away its edges for 400 miles in each direction and left a seam that persists as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The event is named for the most immediate consequence on earth: a great flood, greater than any we shall ever see again. Only eight people survived--because they had 120 years' advance warning and could build a ship to carry them, and enough land-animal and avian specimens to re-seed the earth after the waters drained into what became the Pacific Basin.

            And in addition, four percent of the earth's mass escaped the earth--to persist as the meteroids, asteroids, comets, and trans-Neptunian objects of today, and the subglacial oceans of Europa, Ganymede, and Enceladus.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by conscious1978 4 years, 3 months ago
              Wow! "Logic", "explains", and "evidence" are foreign concepts to this compilation of beliefs. Let me recommend, to others, spending some time in the dirt and rocks studying the fossil record.

              The lack of critical thinking that gives rise to a book like this is why some people want to legislate what women Should do with their bodies.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                Unless I'm mistaken, no one is asserting that evolution/change within a species occurs. The issue is that there is no evidence supporting the notion that one species evolves into a completely different species. In fact, quit the opposite is true. When species interbreed, the resulting offspring is sterile as a natural halt to dilution of both species.

                The theory of evolution remains a theory, precisely because the "missing link" remains unproven. This is a challenge for many reason, but not the least of which the expected abundance that should exist given the numbers that would have been necessary to the transition to occur.

                Further, why did the transition stop? Presumably, evolution from one species to the next should still be occurring.

                I'm certainly open to evaluating new evidence as it's found, but for the "theory of evolution" advocates to simply discount those that subscribe to intelligent design as crackpots or devoid of reason on this subject is somewhat disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by H6163741 4 years, 3 months ago
                And the lack of information regarding fetal development and the inability of a woman to see an ultrasound before aborting are what cause the baby's body to be killed.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
            I completely agree. There is NO scientific evidence one species completely transitioning into an entirely new species.

            We're expected to believe that something as basic as a pencil requires a creator, but the most complex system in the universe happened by random chance.

            I subscribe to intelligent design.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 4 years, 3 months ago
      Make me a slave tem. Just say it
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by H6163741 4 years, 3 months ago
        It would appear that your feelings about being a "slave," since you have now used that word about 10 times (I'm guessing here.) are interfering with your ability to accept the biological facts. It doesn't appear that have done the research I suggested earlier, I will provide a quote from What to Expect...
        "Week 6 - Your baby's face is taking shape, which is something sweet to think about as you race to the toilet to pee again.... Also taking shape this week, her kidneys, liver and lungs, along with her little heart, which is now beating 80 times a minute..."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 4 years, 3 months ago
    Does anybody have an idea what they are doing with these body parts?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Technocracy 4 years, 3 months ago
      My guess would be harvesting specific stem cell types.

      Or using the infant tissue for conversion into stem cells. Someone (Jbrenner maybe?) linked a story about that process some time back. They have developed, or are experimenting with a process to convert differentiated tissue back into stem cells.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
        The tragedy is that for all the talk about the need for embryonic stem cell research (and the right standing in the way of it), the actual breakthroughs have come from umbilical stem cells and reprogramming of adult stem cells.

        It's more pipe dreams to justify killing unborn children.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by TheRealBill 4 years, 3 months ago
          It isn't exactly a reasonable argument to assert that the lack of "breakthroughs" from a line of research which has not been allowed to be pursued is a reason not to pursue it.

          This is no different than the argument that because we don't have modern studies on the beneficial effects of certain hallucinogenic drugs in the treatment of various ills such as alcohol addiction, PTSD, etc. because we prohibit them we shouldn't allow them to take place.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
            Advocates of embryonic stem cell research have claimed for decades that this research would yield breakthrough discoveries. How long must this assertion be allowed to stand before it's labeled a pipe dream?

            This is particularly relevant, because during that same time frame, umbilical stem cells and reprogramming of adult cells have both yielded tremendous discovery.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by TheRealBill 4 years, 3 months ago
              Again you are ignoring the basic facts and substituting sophistry. When a given research isn't allowed you don't get to claim it can't be valuable because it hasn't been done.

              Let's go to the driving analogy. What you are saying is that we should never allow new drivers licenses to be issued to people because they haven't proven new drivers can drive safely. Your argument is thus that we should not allow new drivers who have never been allowed to legally drive because they can't show they can drive.

              It doesn't matter the subject, the basic structure of your argument is fatally flawed. In your case you are saying we shouldn't allow the research because it hasn't produced results because we don't allow it. So, how can the results be legally obtained if to do the research is illegal?

              I don't know if there are benefits to the given research or not - and frankly neither do you. You can't know it. Basically your argument could be boiled down to "we shouldn't allow it because we don't allow it now" in it's best form.

              If you are unwilling to admit the fact that you're insisting that illegal research be done to show it's usefulness (or lack thereof) before allowing it then you are not capable of having a rational and reasonable discussion on the subject. Which is fine, it just means that our conversation on this subject or in any where you behave in this fashion will cease or not happen in the future. No harm, no foul.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
            You might want to do a little more research. To date, only one significant research topic has resulted from the use of embryonic stem cells (the ones derived from aborted fetuses) that I am aware of. Dozens have been the result of research using adult stem cells or umbilical cord-derived stem cells. And the research using all three of these forms has been going on for the same amount of time - since the early 80's.

            If you were an investor and you had a billion dollars, would you invest in the one which had already generated success dozens of times over or the one which to date had only one success and had associated ethical debate which would immediately kill 50%+ of your potential market?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 4 years, 3 months ago
    The first big question is should these abortions be even partially funded with tax payer dollars. I say, emphatically, NO!. If it is a choice then the one that chooses should pay...no me, not you, not the lot of us. Second...you play, you pay; (accountability). Rape or 'Real' medical conditions are a Completely different story here.
    Third, Their should be a cut off point, that's very clear...and again, medical issues are a different story. This whole feminine issue lacks conscience and is driven by unhealthy misconceptions, hubris and I wouldn't be surprised if it's tied into 'Global De-population' agenda by those that do not value Conscious Human life. These creatures value the earth more than humans and can not create the necessary values to clean up the mess they have made! Post Script: If an abortion is rightfully warranted then the donor parts and stem cells should be donated...shipping cost at the expense of the receiver.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by cjferraris 4 years, 3 months ago
    I'm very conflicted on this. I'm not pro-abortion at all, and I feel that profiting off of the remains of aborted fetuses is wrong. But worst of it is selecting how to abort the fetus based on what body part is needed. I think that speaks volumes to the depths of depravity that we've sunk to. I mean it's "just a bunch of cells" is the argument that they like to use, as they imply that the entire fetus will be disposed of. What they are saying is, "Let's keep going with late term abortions because it's good business for us." I'm sorry, but personally, we should limit the gestation to no more than 16 weeks unless the life of the mother is in danger.

    Just my point of view.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
    What should also NOT be overlooked is that this practice is strictly ILLEGAL - regardless what one feels of the morality of the issue. That she admits to this at a very minimum should get her thrown in jail for facilitation and failure to report. If I had my way, PP would have been shut down a long time ago for all their illegal activities alone - not to mention their despicable morals.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by TheRealBill 4 years, 3 months ago
      Exactly, blarman!

      Arguing about the morality here as opposed to the clear illegality of it is not terribly useful. Regardless of your position on abortion, the activities described here are clearly against the law. Prosecute the criminal activities. The rest is largely ideology.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo