Abortion

[JavaTigress]

It's a dead fetus. You can either chuck it in the trash or use it to help people. Not really a difficult choice. Why should the fetus need to consent to medical research but not consent to being taken out with the garbage?

AND Honestly... this was the argument I read that a lot of the people doing the research had about it.

 

That the abortion has happened anyway, the tissue can either be disposed of or made use of in some way that might be beneficial.

[Kestra15]

NOTHING!!!? How on earth can they do NOTHING?

As in not even TRYING?

 

Isn't their JOB supposed to be to do their best to prevent that kind of thing?

Just saying. I don't see an excuse for not even TRYING.

Cases of domestic abuse can only be pushed forward if the abused is willing to push the case. The Mental Capacity Act (2005) allows people to make what can be considered an unwise decision by others if they have the capacity to make that decision, and that decision cannot be overruled unless a child, or another 'adult at risk,' is involved. The next step is a case of evidence. If the abuser is only verbally violent and no-one is ever around to hear it, it becomes a case of one person's word against another. Same with physical violence if no marks are left and no-one witnesses it. As for controlling behaviour? Again, unless the abused steps forward as points out such behaviour and takes steps to stop it, then it can't be proven as controlling for the most part.

 

It is very, very upsetting when I get involved in these cases, but the key comes down to making the abused realise the situation they are in and giving them the support and courage to step forward and ask for help. Until they do that, in many cases there is little to nothing that can actually be done.

 

If they weren't used for research, they would be thrown out.

This. Hence why in the event of my death (and providing regeneration didn't kick in on time), I'm quite happy to have my organs donated to others, or body used for science, whatever they can get out of me.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Kestra15

[Fuzzbucket]

NOTHING!!!? How on earth can they do NOTHING?

As in not even TRYING?

 

Isn't their JOB supposed to be to do their best to prevent that kind of thing?

Just saying. I don't see an excuse for not even TRYING.

 

And that may be true... but isn't there other ways to do necessary research WITHOUT using baby body parts?

YES - cops will very often refuse to interfere in what they deem a "domestic".

 

There is tissue in the placenta and in the foetus which is not a part of a fully developed baby.

 

No, a fetus can't give consent - but whenever a child has to have medical attention, it is the parents who have to give consent, not the child. I believe the same applies to aborted tissue. Not that a foetus is a child anyway.., but that's a whole different issue.

 

  I think questioning whether it's ethical to use the corpse of a fetus for scientific research because they can't consent is kind of laughable considering it was just aborted without consent. Also, your parents can choose to donate your body to science until you become an adult without your consent, so it's pretty redundant.

Very true.

What I diid find particularly interesting is that neither the practice itself OR the controversy around it are anything NEW necessarily... it is just that, because of those videos...there are a whole LOT more people thinking about it, right now.

And THIS is the crux of it. Anti-abortionists are beginning to realise that they will never win on the choice issue, so now they are trying for the eeeew factor. Because people have begun to realise that their videos of the dear little foetus are lies - vanishingly few abortions have ever been done when the womb contained more than a glob of bloody tissue, NOT anything remotely recognisable as an incipient baby. Thank goodness for sex education - where it exists.

 

This harms no-one and could help millions. I would even make it legal without the woman's consent. I've no idea what happens to garbage surgical tissue, but if I find out in years to come that they used my womb for this kind of thing after they whipped it out - more power to them - even though I assumed it had gone in the incinerator. And actually, as a woman, I would far rather think of any aborted tissue from my insides being used for something rather than chucked in a bonfire.

[JavaTigress]

YES - cops will very often refuse to interfere in what they deem a "domestic".

 

There is tissue in the placenta and in the foetus which is not a part of a fully developed baby.

 

No, a fetus can't give consent - but whenever a child has to have medical attention, it is the parents who have to give consent, not the child. I believe the same applies to aborted tissue. Not that a foetus is a child anyway.., but that's a whole different issue.

 

 

Very true.

 

And THIS is the crux of it. Anti-abortionists are beginning to realise that they will never win on the choice issue, so now they are trying for the eeeew factor. Because people have begun to realise that their videos of the dear little foetus are lies - vanishingly few abortions have ever been done when the womb contained more than a glob of bloody tissue, NOT anything remotely recognisable as an incipient baby. Thank goodness for sex education - where it exists.

 

This harms no-one and could help millions. I would even make it legal without the woman's consent. I've no idea what happens to garbage surgical tissue, but if I find out in years to come that they used my womb for this kind of thing after they whipped it out - more power to them - even though I assumed it had gone in the incinerator. And actually, as a woman, I would far rather think of any aborted tissue from my insides being used for something rather than chucked in a bonfire.

Here is a question... is it usable if it isn't yet recognizable as an incipient baby? Perhaps for different things?

(Because as you say, IF someone has decided to have an abortion,my guess is that they probably have it done ASAP.)

 

The videos made it sound like it was ORGANS ( kidneys and such...) they were interested in using... though I am not sure how valid that assessment is.

ALSO,some of the articles I looked at referred to cells from specific organs being used for certain things...

 

Maybe the way to look at it is that IF abortions are going to happen anyway ( Whatever I personally, or others either,may feel about that ...), at least some good can come from it as opposed to being an all around bad situation?

 

I guess what I found interesting was how widespread the uses for it were, to be honest.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Silverswift

[Fuzzbucket]

Here is a question... is it usable if it isn't yet recognizable as an incipient baby? Perhaps for different things?

(Because as you say, IF someone has decided to have an abortion,my guess is that they probably have it done ASAP.)

 

The videos made it sound like it was ORGANS ( kidneys and such...) they were interested in using... though I am not sure how valid that assessment is.

ALSO,some of the articles I looked at referred to cells from specific organs being used for certain things...

 

Maybe the way to look at it is that IF abortions are going to happen anyway ( Whatever I personally, or others either,may feel about that ...), at least some good can come from it as opposed to being an all around bad situation?

 

I guess what I found interesting was how widespread the uses for it were, to be honest.

I don't have the medical knowledge for that one - Kestra ?

 

But if it is "waste" tissue anyway - I can't see why it matters. And yes - good from a bad situation. A very good attitude.

[JavaTigress]

I don't have the medical knowledge for that one - Kestra ?

 

But if it is "waste" tissue anyway - I can't see why it matters.

It just made me curious is all.

The one article I read, for example, talked about them using... was it kidney cells... for growing polio virus for vaccine.

[Fuzzbucket]

It just made me curious is all.

The one article I read, for example, talked about them using... was it kidney cells... for growing polio virus for vaccine.

No idea - but I'd support that - wouldn't you ?

 

What I would not support would be using it to test silly cosmetics...

[Twyro]

Here is a question... is it usable if it isn't yet recognizable as an incipient baby? Perhaps for different things?

(Because as you say, IF someone has decided to have an abortion,my guess is that they probably have it done ASAP.)

 

I think so. The growing cells of the faetus are of extreme division potential and can be differentiated in more ways than one, so yes, those tissues can be very, very useful for, let's say, genetics engineering.

[Kestra15]

I don't have the medical knowledge for that one - Kestra ?

Honestly? I've rarely come across use of fetal cell research in the medical texts and research that I've studied, so I can't say it with much authority. However - when it comes to using fetal cells from abortion I've only every seen stem cells referenced as being used for research, so I can't imagine that there is any real 'organ harvesting' taking place in reputable scientific research. A fetus is not a fully-developed separate biological entity and so all of the organs are immature and will not react in an appropriate manner, so I can't see any actual scientific reason to use aborted fetal matter for anything other than stem cell harvesting. Certainly embryonic stem cells are not gathered from impregnated mothers, I've found next to nothing on use of fetal stem cells being used in actual research and instead are only ever referenced in terms of differentiating types of stem cells. I can't imagine use of fetal cells either because the process of abortion will result in death of the fetus and therefore death of fetal cells, and even if an individual fetal cell is still alive the toxins released by dead and dying tissue would certainly contaminate it and invalidate it for use.

 

In short; I've not come across much evidence of aborted tissue being used in modern, reputable scientific research, and my own knowledge about biology would suggest that it wouldn't be of much use anyway. However I am no expert on the matter.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Kestra15

[nlechoppa]

Anything a fetal cell could do, a stem cell could do as well. Studying fetuses is a utter waste of time when we have stem cells.

[JavaTigress]

No idea - but I'd support that - wouldn't you ?

 

What I would not support would be using it to test silly cosmetics...

I know what you mean THOUGH If I understand correctly, polio vaccine isn't produced that way anymore. Would have to read more on that.

[Brite]

Are there even any links about fetuses mutating to masses and tumors?

[Eclipseheart]

Are there even any links about fetuses mutating to masses and tumors?

Are you referring to Molar Pregnancies, Fetus in fetu, or Gestational Trophoblafic Disease?

[Brite]

Are you referring to Molar Pregnancies, Fetus in fetu, or Gestational Trophoblafic Disease?

There we go. I had the fetu one but couldn't find any of the others. Thanks!

 

As for the PPH "leaked" video..rather annoying. It's just there to milk the votes out of people. Me and my manager researched and found out that lila was proven to be a liar and paid by the church to "expose" PPH.

 

 

-superfacepalm...

 

And don't get me started on the protesters that backed up traffic outside of the clinic..

[TheScorpionKing]

A lot of things have to be taken into consideration

before an abortion:

religious issues, health issues, how the woman will feel

afterwards, what is best for everyone all around.

 

But all these issues should be considered by the woman

before she chooses to have an abortion,

because it is her own personal and private decision,

no one else's.

[nlechoppa]

Just a thought.

If a fetus is a parasite because it depends on it's mother, how is a newborn not a parasite by this definition, a newborn without it's mother will certainly die so using this reasoning a newborn should be able to be killed for convenience's sake. In fact with this reasoning until a baby is able to be weaned, it would be fine to kill it.

[Rosedamai]

Just a thought.

If a fetus is a parasite because it depends on it's mother, how is a newborn not a parasite by this definition, a newborn without it's mother will certainly die so using this reasoning a newborn should be able to be killed for convenience's sake. In fact with this reasoning until a baby is able to be weaned, it would be fine to kill it.

Not exactly, if a cat gives birth and neglects a runt, for example, I can hand rear it. If I rip off a fetus from its mother I can't take care of it by any means.

[nlechoppa]

Not exactly, if a cat gives birth and neglects a runt, for example, I can hand rear it. If I rip off a fetus from its mother I can't take care of it by any means.

A fetus that is over 22 weeks old could be hand-reared, abortions for them are done as well.

[Rosedamai]

A fetus that is over 22 weeks old could be hand-reared, abortions for them are done as well.

Most abortions are done under 12 weeks, aka during the 1st trimester, so I don't know what your point is

[nlechoppa]

Most abortions are done under 12 weeks, aka during the 1st trimester, so I don't know what your point is

There are still abortions that happen after 22 weeks, I'm just saying what makes a person a person.

[Brite]

There are still abortions that happen after 22 weeks, I'm just saying what makes a person a person.

Only in rare cases. Usually if the mother is in danger.

[Syaoransbear]

There are still abortions that happen after 22 weeks, I'm just saying what makes a person a person.

Yeah when the mother or the fetus is going to die. :/

 

A fetus is parasitic because it uses another person's body to survive. While a baby needs to be taken care of by another human, it doesn't need that human's body. Calling a baby parasitic is like calling all children parasitic which they totally are.

[Infinis]

Just a thought.

If a fetus is a parasite because it depends on it's mother, how is a newborn not a parasite by this definition, a newborn without it's mother will certainly die so using this reasoning a newborn should be able to be killed for convenience's sake. In fact with this reasoning until a baby is able to be weaned, it would be fine to kill it.

The difference is this: a newborn can survive independently of a host organism. Regardless of care practices, a newborn is capable of living outside the womb (whether it survives long depends on a number of factors, including proper care) and is not directly dependent on the mother's blood/nutrient supply as a fetus is.

 

By contrast, a parasitic relationship is one that is inherently detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the host. For example, the human-tapeworm relationship. Tapeworms are parasites because they suck away all the host's nutrients, which ultimately pushes the host to malnutrition and death if the problem is not taken care of - of course, not before the tapeworm can breed and continue its line.

 

A fetus is, in some respects, a parasite, especially in that it requires another person's body to stay alive at all. Usually the fetus-mother relationship is more commensalistic, as long as the mother is living for two. If the mother fails to supply nutrients for two, the body is capable of taking those nutrients away from the mother and funneling them to the fetus instead - for example, if a mother doesn't get enough calcium, the body will leach it from the mother's bones and funnel it to the fetus. This contributes to weak bones and to increases risk of fractures, something that is detrimental to the mother's health.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Infinis

[JavaTigress]

The difference is this: a newborn can survive independently of a host organism. Regardless of care practices, a newborn is capable of living outside the womb (whether it survives long depends on a number of factors, including proper care) and is not directly dependent on the mother's blood/nutrient supply as a fetus is.

 

By contrast, a parasitic relationship is one that is inherently detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the host. For example, the human-tapeworm relationship. Tapeworms are parasites because they suck away all the host's nutrients, which ultimately pushes the host to malnutrition and death if the problem is not taken care of - of course, not before the tapeworm can breed and continue its line.

 

A fetus is, in some respects, a parasite, especially in that it requires another person's body to stay alive at all. Usually the fetus-mother relationship is more commensalistic, as long as the mother is living for two. If the mother fails to supply nutrients for two, the body is capable of taking those nutrients away from the mother and funneling them to the fetus instead - for example, if a mother doesn't get enough calcium, the body will leach it from the mother's bones and funnel it to the fetus. This contributes to weak bones and to increases risk of fractures, something that is detrimental to the mother's health.

WHICH, I am sure, is why doctors recommend special vitamins and such during pregnancy... to ensure that both the mother and her child get the proper amount of nutrients that they need and that kind of thing isn't an issue.

[Kestra15]

Just a thought.

If a fetus is a parasite because it depends on it's mother, how is a newborn not a parasite by this definition, a newborn without it's mother will certainly die so using this reasoning a newborn should be able to be killed for convenience's sake. In fact with this reasoning until a baby is able to be weaned, it would be fine to kill it.

A parasitic organism is wholly biologically dependent on the host and is physically attached. A baby is not.

 

Infinis: I believe not all parasitic relationships are detrimental to the host? Some have little to no effect on the host, and I'm sure there are the odd one or two that are beneficial both ways...

 

A fetus that is over 22 weeks old could be hand-reared, abortions for them are done as well.

No. A fetus that is 23weeks old is underdeveloped; it is not simply an immature human like a baby/child/teenager, but is biologically unable to independently support life. Preme babies of that age require artificial life support of some description or another to allow for organs to develop into a state where it can independently perform the necessities of life. It's a vast difference between providing food and shelter, and artificial surrogacy.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Kestra15