Fetal tissue and how it has advanced medical science.

Tomorrow they prove as two and two to take in food victim of abortions necessary for ( them ) health e.g. wrapped in dough and bake in the oven. this is the case, for the legalization of cannibalism they only not say that blue eat red never conversely

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask


Having worked in the medical field YES i can say that..........

If it was life threatening it wouldnt have been handled by them it would have been referred to an emergency facility.........

which is besides the point......the marjority of this was voluntary so the point is moot

abcnews.go.com...

the women runs into complications in her pregnancy, she has lost the embryonic fluid, her health is at risk and the baby will be eventually be crushed by the uterus. do they send or to the er because the fetus is in distress and the mother's health is in danger? ahhh,.no! she is told that because of a new law, a law that was made that prohibits the abortion because the fetus feels pain, nature would have to take it's course.....
the parents really weren't even asking for an abortion, they just wanted the labor induced.


Her water broke on Nov 28th.

On Dec. 8, Daniel delivered 1-pound, 10-ounce Elizabeth, who survived only 15 minutes outside the womb. Now, three months later, Danielle Deaver has contacted Planned Parenthood. She said that so far she is not contemplating a challenged to the law.

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: ketsuko
And I wonder where some of you stand on animal testing. If "we're just going to abort them anyhow" is your excuse for this, then you should be all in on animal testing. Somehow, I don't think you all are.

I see absolutely no rationale behind that comparison...
Situation 1 is IF there are abortions, THEN we may as well use the tissue for beneficial things like medical research.
And you compare it with...animal testing...there's not even an 'if-then'....that comparison doesn't make any sense...

Perhaps because you aren't seeing the argument. Try it this way:

Fetuses aren't people, therefore we should have no issues using them for research.

Change that to:

Animals aren't people, therefore we should have no issues using them for research.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: ketsuko
And I wonder where some of you stand on animal testing. If "we're just going to abort them anyhow" is your excuse for this, then you should be all in on animal testing. Somehow, I don't think you all are.

I see absolutely no rationale behind that comparison...
Situation 1 is IF there are abortions, THEN we may as well use the tissue for beneficial things like medical research.
And you compare it with...animal testing...there's not even an 'if-then'....that comparison doesn't make any sense...

Perhaps because you aren't seeing the argument. Try it this way:

Fetuses aren't people, therefore we should have no issues using them for research.

Change that to:

Animals aren't people, therefore we should have no issues using them for research.

Except that wasn't the argument...
The argument was 'since abortions happen anyways, we may as well use the tissue for medical research.' Personhood of the fetus wasn't the presented argument.

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: ketsuko
And I wonder where some of you stand on animal testing. If "we're just going to abort them anyhow" is your excuse for this, then you should be all in on animal testing. Somehow, I don't think you all are.

I see absolutely no rationale behind that comparison...
Situation 1 is IF there are abortions, THEN we may as well use the tissue for beneficial things like medical research.
And you compare it with...animal testing...there's not even an 'if-then'....that comparison doesn't make any sense...

Perhaps because you aren't seeing the argument. Try it this way:

Fetuses aren't people, therefore we should have no issues using them for research.

Change that to:

Animals aren't people, therefore we should have no issues using them for research.

Except that wasn't the argument...
The argument was 'since abortions happen anyways, we may as well use the tissue for medical research.' Personhood of the fetus wasn't the presented argument.

That appears to be a side argument.

But your argument would hold more validity if these abortions happened naturally instead of being induced by an artificial force. These abortions aren't just happening. They are planned and manipulated to produce specific products.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

no they're not!!!
no women is going into a doctor's office for an abortion with the motive of producing fetal stem cells for research!!!
that is just insane! the motive might be anything from I just don't want the kid, I am too young, I'm not ready to change my lifestyle to I want to be able to live!!!! which quite frankly at least to me are really more purer motives than....
I want to bomb the heck out of this country because by buddies want to profit from their oil!!

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: boymonkey74
10 Medical advancements from the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars
Go War!
I see what I did there.

To use another example...
The reign of Hitler in Germany actually led to huge advancements in science and technology. It's my understanding we made massive gains in medicine because the Nazis had no ethical boundaries. For example (IIRC), we have accurate data on how long it takes someone to die of hypothermia...because the Nazis had no problem sticking concentration camp inmates in a tub of ice water and watching them die, and then repeating the experiment with different variables to try to help their pilots survive emergencies in the cold ocean water. Another example: smoking. I've heard that the Nazis were aware of smokings detrimental effects to human health thanks to research (spurred on by Hitler, a notorious anti-smoker and health nut.)

I feel no guilt over using the data collected in those horrific experiments for good. But I wouldn't try to defend the practice of dehumanizing and then murdering people on the basis that it leads to medical advances.

Every fast food place could have been a research lab, looking for whatever.

But the monetary system sucked out 95% of the economy's wealth over the last 100 years, so we got hamburgers instead of technological miracles.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Teikiatsu

no they're not!!!
no women is going into a doctor's office for an abortion with the motive of producing fetal stem cells for research!!!
that is just insane!

I didn't say the mother was involved in the planning and manipulation. We have recorded statements which inform us that the aborting medical technicians can (and often do) use ultrasound to determine the child's physical orientation, then manipulate the child so that the desired organs (ie 'product') will receive the least damage.

the motive might be anything from I just don't want the kid, I am too young, I'm not ready to change my lifestyle to I want to be able to live!!!!

Then my advice is (in order) don't have sex if you aren't ready for the responsibility of a kid, don't have sex if you aren't ready for the responsibility of a kid, don't have sex if you aren't prepared to change your lifestyle, and don't have sex if you aren't ready for the responsibility of a kid.

which quite frankly at least to me are really more purer motives than....

Pure selfishness, at least.

I want to bomb the heck out of this country because by buddies want to profit from their oil!!

... (blink) ... (scratch head) ... what?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

Then my advice is (in order) don't have sex if you aren't ready for the responsibility of a kid, don't have sex if you aren't ready for the responsibility of a kid, don't have sex if you aren't prepared to change your lifestyle, and don't have sex if you aren't ready for the responsibility of a kid.

For one, that's not realistic.
For another, what about rape?

Also, I found this quite interesting: Fertility clinics destroy embryos all the time. Why aren’t conservatives after them?

The disparity between how the law treats abortion patients and IVF patients reveals an ugly truth about abortion restrictions: that they are often less about protecting life than about controlling women’s bodies. Both IVF and abortion involve the destruction of fertilized eggs that could potentially develop into people. But only abortion concerns women who have had sex that they don’t want to lead to childbirth. Abortion restrictions use unwanted pregnancy as a punishment for “irresponsible sex” and remind women of the consequences of being unchaste: If you didn’t want to endure a mandatory vaginal ultrasound , you shouldn’t have had sex in the first place .

If anti-choice lawmakers cared as much about protecting life as they did about women having sex, they could promote laws that prevent unwanted pregnancy. Yet the same conservatives who restrict abortion also oppose insurance coverage for contraception and comprehensive sexuality education. They view contraception, like abortion, as a “license” to have non-procreative sex. Women, GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee assures us, don’t need contraception — they just need to “control their libido.”

Well worth the read...

a reply to: beezzer
There are people already saving their children umbilical cords to treat them (or themselves) with stem cells

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

Then my advice is (in order) don't have sex if you aren't ready for the responsibility of a kid, don't have sex if you aren't ready for the responsibility of a kid, don't have sex if you aren't prepared to change your lifestyle, and don't have sex if you aren't ready for the responsibility of a kid.

For one, that's not realistic.
For another, what about rape?

1) It's advice, not a mandate
2) In the case of rape, my stance is as follows:

Everyone has freedom of choice in what sexual behavior they engage in. If someone willingly has heterosexual sex and despite every precaution they took a pregnancy is the result, then those people who willingly engaged in their freedom are responsible for the consequences of their actions and should bring to child into the world and adopt out if they are not able to support the new person.

If the woman's freedom of choice was taken from her by a rapist and a pregnancy is the result, then it follows that the woman's only remaining choice is to continue or terminate the pregnancy. If she should choose to terminate the pregnancy, then we as a society must recognize that an innocent life has been ended by the actions of another. In addition to all other charges, the rapist should be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Thankfully, pregnancy by rape is fairly uncommon. Only 1% of aborting women report that they were the victim of rape.

www.abort73.com...

originally posted by: Lincourtz
a reply to: beezzer
There are people already saving their children umbilical cords to treat them (or themselves) with stem cells

We had our youngest's umbilical blood saved.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu


Everyone has freedom of choice in what sexual behavior they engage in. If someone willingly has heterosexual sex and despite every precaution they took a pregnancy is the result, then those people who willingly engaged in their freedom are responsible for the consequences of their actions and should bring to child into the world and adopt out if they are not able to support the new person.

...and if someone willingly has heterosexual sex, and despite all available precautions becomes pregnant and is mentally unfit for parenthood, or has complications which could result in her death due to that pregnancy, what then?

What if, during the pregnancy, the woman's (we'll assume she is a woman, not an adolescent for this) family shun her due to her pregnancy and she dies?

I don't think people should, necessarily, bring a child into the world if they are pregnant. It's not that clear cut.

A foetus is not a child, either.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
A lot of surprise and anger on the boards to do with the PP videos and selling fetal tissue to labs and such.
Now I will not go into the selling of it because frankly I don't know the USA laws about it but I will attempt to show you that we have been using fetal tissue for years and it is helping people now and has done for years.
Now fetal tissue was used in the first polio vaccine also Hepatitis A, German measles, chickenpox and rabies.

Now someone attempted to say they were injecting mice with cells from fetal tissue will make Chimeras....no the reason they implant the cells into the mice is that the cells divide rapidly, adapt to new environments easily, and are less susceptible to rejection than adult cells if transplanted.
This makes the mouses immune system mimic ours so thus aiding research into Cancer and other diseases.
Parkinsons is also helped by transplanting cells from fetal tissue.
Aids research also.
Oh and the ebola vaccine? yes it used fetal tissue.


hsci.harvard.edu...

www.pbs.org...

We will never stop women getting abortions and I am pro choice not pro abortion I think we should be educating all people about safe sex and the consequences of it.
As always education is the key.
But I for one am glad some people do this type of work for the people living and suffering now.

(Oh and Vaccines andText

Ok...here goes a stab at historical perspective, which you probably will not like;

When the Nazis were running through all of Europe, they had following in their wake three of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. A gut named Fritz ter Meer was one of the heads of one of those pharma companies. You might know him as the dude who built Auschwitz. He actually took his daughter, aged about 6 at the time, to see the ironic catch phrase emblazoned in wrought iron above the main gate....she wrote about it later, in her old age. Point is, the Nazis gave these 3 huge pharma companies carte blanche to use human beings as guinea pigs for the "long-term benefit of humankind".

What they found was that, if you put fluoride in the water supply, it makes prisoners compliant. They also found that most of their vaccines CAUSE disease, not cure it, which is why you will find that the recent outbreak of measles AROSE from inoculated individuals, NOT the inoculated.

Hundreds of thousands died in the experiments. (Not millions, as they would have you believe, although this will NEVER diminish the atrocities that were, indeed, committed against human test subjects.)

Fritz ter Meer, by the way, served a total of 6 years for his crimes against humanity. He then went to his pals in the United Nations and told them that the only way to control the world was to control the food supply. He created the Codex Alimentarius. The UN unanimously passed it in the 1960's. It has already been partially implemented by the FDA in the US. And fluoride in the water supply was brought into the US the same time that we imported captured German scientists during Operation Paperclip.

Thus, if you ask me if I am accepting of the idea of using aborted children as scientific experiments, calling them "excavated tissues"?....No.

There is no f*cking excuse big enough for this.

Especially because the Japanese have already figured out how to create stem cells from adult human donors willing to have a plug of arm tissue extracted in about a two-second timeframe.

Seriously...they are still trying to justify abortions this way?


What a joke.

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

Then my advice is (in order) don't have sex if you aren't ready for the responsibility of a kid, don't have sex if you aren't ready for the responsibility of a kid, don't have sex if you aren't prepared to change your lifestyle, and don't have sex if you aren't ready for the responsibility of a kid.

For one, that's not realistic.
For another, what about rape?

Also, I found this quite interesting: Fertility clinics destroy embryos all the time. Why aren’t conservatives after them?

The disparity between how the law treats abortion patients and IVF patients reveals an ugly truth about abortion restrictions: that they are often less about protecting life than about controlling women’s bodies. Both IVF and abortion involve the destruction of fertilized eggs that could potentially develop into people. But only abortion concerns women who have had sex that they don’t want to lead to childbirth. Abortion restrictions use unwanted pregnancy as a punishment for “irresponsible sex” and remind women of the consequences of being unchaste: If you didn’t want to endure a mandatory vaginal ultrasound , you shouldn’t have had sex in the first place .

If anti-choice lawmakers cared as much about protecting life as they did about women having sex, they could promote laws that prevent unwanted pregnancy. Yet the same conservatives who restrict abortion also oppose insurance coverage for contraception and comprehensive sexuality education. They view contraception, like abortion, as a “license” to have non-procreative sex. Women, GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee assures us, don’t need contraception — they just need to “control their libido.”

Well worth the read...

I was just about to bring this up about IVF, I bring it up occasionally in the abortion debate, so far selectively ignored . People go as far as doing it to get their specific sex then freeze, discard or donate the rest. I don't see m(any) sticking up for these unwanted 'children'.

I'll be interested to see if you get a response, I'm curious as to how people can accept this practice but not abortion.

Well, since I am one of the quotes you use, I suppose that I should respond;

First, I think it quite a stretch to compare children, aborted as late as 9 months in some states (called "live-born abortions") who are then sold as cold corpses for medical "research", and I put "research" in quotes simply because many fetuses are actually shipped to FOOD companies as fodder for artificial sweetener manufacturing...sweeteners that most often end up in diet colas, for f*cks sake, (just look up the origins of Pepsi's diet sweetener and, now, I think, Coke has also recently taken this route.), and then tell me that Planned Parenthood was accurate in stating that we, the anti-abortionists are so very disrespectful to the women who opt for control of their bodies and "choice".

Wait up...did those pregnant women willingly choose to donate their now-dead children to become cola sweeteners and vaccine experiments?

Did they sign ANYTHING that permits "science" to use their kids for anything...especially pharmaceutical PROFIT?

And, if life does not begin at conception, why don't unjoined sperm and ova hold the same love allure with profiteering "researchers"?

Which leads me to your final question...Are frozen embryos children and can they be destroyed without conscience?

Yes, they are children.

And, no, they cannot be destroyed without being guilty of murder.

And, no you should not create any them without the intent of bringing all of them into the world.

Just because you can create them does not mean you should. It is not natural. If you are meant to have children, you will. If you artificially create children, then you must have them all.

a reply to: NaturalHealer

What do you want to do ban it?.
It isn't murder so stop attempting to demonise women who have had it. They are not children.
Who the F are you to judge women like this?.
Just no to so much you have said.
Bleat but no solutions as usual.
You ban it? do you think It will stop? how are you going to force women to have a pregnancy who do not wish to do so?.
In a perfect world it wouldn't happen but it isn't and it isn't as black and white as some appear to think.
I wish folk would show compassion for actual people who need help instead of fighting against womens rights and womens choice.
Oh and If you are a woman you are a traitor to your sex.

So come on answers solutions eh?.
Or do you just wish to slag people off?.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Everyone has freedom of choice in what sexual behavior they engage in. If someone willingly has heterosexual sex and despite every precaution they took a pregnancy is the result, then those people who willingly engaged in their freedom are responsible for the consequences of their actions

Too right ...

and should bring the child into the world and adopt out if they are
not able to support the new person

So what happened to the 'freedom of choice' you advocated

She or they chose termination ....

Isn't your idea of 'freedom of choice' rather selective?