Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

credoie

lazygal wrote: »

Why is the cause of death relevant in the use of body parts? Should all human beings who have been killed never be used for medical research?

Why ??? We already have a problem with human organ trafficking resulting in people dying. Of course how the tissue is obtained matters.

The Randy Riverbeast

credoie wrote: »

You can't kill another human being.

Im sure there are a few judges, police officers and doctors who would debate that.

credoie wrote: »

Saying your cause of death does not matter makes me question why we are even having this conversation and where its going...

When it comes to donation, it doesnt matter. If someone stabs lazygal tomorrow and her kidneys are fine then her next of kin are free to donate them assuming they are in usable condition.

lazygal

credoie wrote: »

Why ??? We already have a problem with human organ trafficking resulting in people dying. Of course how the tissue is obtained matters.

There's two babies bodies, one was aborted because a woman's life was at risk and the other was a spontaneous natural miscarriage. Why can one body be used for medical research but not the other?

credoie

lazygal wrote: »

There's two babies bodies, one was aborted because a woman's life was at risk and the other was a spontaneous natural miscarriage. Why can one body be used for medical research but not the other?

one was aborted because a woman's life?? You mean the baby was delivered prematurely to save the Mothers life?? or was it first killed in the woman and then removed?

What procedure was carried out?

lazygal

credoie wrote: »

one was aborted because a woman's life?? You mean the baby was delivered prematurely to save the Mothers life?? or was it first killed in the woman and then removed?

What procedure was carried out?

So abortion isn't abortion when a woman's life is at risk? Why is the cause of death so important to you?

credoie

lazygal wrote: »

So abortion isn't abortion when a woman's life is at risk? Why is the cause of death so important to you?

For the Reasons I already posted.

DUBLIN DECLARATION ON MATERNAL HEALTHCARE
“As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

lazygal

Oh the Dublin declaration again. That anyone can sign using any name. That's not even worth bothering with.

credoie

lazygal wrote: »

Oh the Dublin declaration again. That anyone can sign using any name. That's not even worth bothering with.

Yeah.. That is why abortion free Republic of Ireland has such bad maternity care.. Right???

lazygal

credoie wrote: »

Yeah.. That is why abortion free Republic of Ireland has such bad maternity care.. Right???

How many times have you used maternity services here? Right now I don't want to have another child in a country where I'll be under threat of force feeding or being kept alive while brain dead and rotting because I happen to be pregnant. Maternity services can't be rated solely on removing all.choice from all pregnant women.

eviltwin

credoie wrote: »

Yeah.. That is why abortion free Republic of Ireland has such bad maternity care.. Right???

Actually there are many women like Lazygal, like myself who had terrible experiences in the Irish maternity system but once a baby is born it's seen as a success so all the other treatment doesn't matter does it? Haven't you heard about all the dead babies born here, haven't you heard about the dead mothers or the children with disabilities due to negligence? First class maternity my arse.

Overheal

credoie wrote: »

Unless the Person (being dissected ) consents to the research then its not ethical. You can't kill a person to do tests on them.

Lots of people give their bodies to medical science after death, thats fine. These children were killed and cut up. Do you want me to post the photos from the videos?

That's a strawman argument: videos of non-fetal tissue donations have no bearing on this topic.

Given that, after birth, a child is not given a myriad of choices about his/her own life until they reach maturity, I find there to be a double standard in Christianity (notably Catholicism) when a religious doctrine is forced upon you during a baptism. This to me establishes that Christianity does not ethically enshrine the free will of the individual in all situations. So why should a fetus have all of its rights, more rights than a child? Again though, we're getting off the topic which is not about justifying abortion but rather should the tissue be used/maximised.

credoie

Overheal wrote: »

That's a strawman argument: videos of non-fetal tissue donations have no bearing on this topic.

Given that, after birth, a child is not given a myriad of choices about his/her own life until they reach maturity, I find there to be a double standard in Christianity (notably Catholicism) when a religious doctrine is forced upon you during a baptism. This to me establishes that Christianity does not ethically enshrine the free will of the individual in all situations. So why should a fetus have all of its rights, more rights than a child? Again though, we're getting off the topic which is not about justifying abortion but rather should the tissue be used/maximised.

I am not asking for more or less rights. I am defending human rights.

Also you don't seem to know what baptism is, however leaving that aside your arguments don't add up. If we are talking about double standards then its the pro-abortion side that has it. For years they have said the baby was just cells, tissue.. Yet when the same industry went to ""donate"" tissue all if a sudden we have human hearts and lungs...

These Children did not die in the women, they were killed and dissected.

MrPudding

credoie wrote: »

I am not asking for more or less rights. I am defending human rights.

Also you don't seem to know what baptism is, however leaving that aside your arguments don't add up. If we are talking about double standards then its the pro-abortion side that has it. For years they have said the baby was just cells, tissue.. Yet when the same industry went to ""donate"" tissue all if a sudden we have human hearts and lungs...

These Children did not die in the women, they were killed and dissected.

I will just leave this here...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/catholic-hospital-argues-_n_2534383.html

MrP

lazygal

credoie wrote: »

I am not asking for more or less rights. I am defending human rights.

Also you don't seem to know what baptism is, however leaving that aside your arguments don't add up. If we are talking about double standards then its the pro-abortion side that has it. For years they have said the baby was just cells, tissue.. Yet when the same industry went to ""donate"" tissue all if a sudden we have human hearts and lungs...

These Children did not die in the women, they were killed and dissected.

Why is it okay to use foetal tissue, hearts, lungs etc for some foetuses but not others? Can the body parts of born children and adults be used regardless of the cause of death?

credoie

lazygal wrote: »

Why is it okay to use foetal tissue, hearts, lungs etc for some foetuses but not others? Can the body parts of born children and adults be used regardless of the cause of death?

If a Child dies and there was nothing that could be done to prevent the Childs death then you can ethically use the Childs organs to improve another life. The intention was not to kill the child.

When you stick a needle in a childs neck you kill it. I'm not outraged about the organs, i am outraged about the callous nature of the abortion industry.

robdonn

credoie wrote: »

These Children did not die in the women, they were killed and dissected.

So they were killed but did not die? Your argument, if a little muddy, is simply that because of the way that they died that their organs should not be donated... sorry, I mean ""donated""?

credoie

Some discussions on the prices of the tissue that PP discussed. So we put this in context.

Buyer: What would you expect for intact tissue? What sort of compensation?
Gatter: Well why don’t you start by telling me what you’re used to paying.
Buyer: Okay. I don’t think so. I’d like to hear, I would like to know, what would make you happy. What would work for you?
Gatter: Well, you know in negotiations the person who throws out the figure first is at a loss, right? So [laughs]
Buyer: No, I don’t look at it that way. I know, you want to play that game, I get it.
Gatter: I don’t want to play games, I just don’t want to lowball, because I’m used to low things from—
Buyer: You know what? If you lowball, I’ll act pleasantly surprised and you’ll know it’s a lowball. What I want to know is, what would work for you. Don’t lowball it, tell me what you really—
Gatter: Okay. $75 a specimen.
Buyer: Oh. That’s way too low.
Gatter: Okay.
Buyer: And that’s, really, that’s way too low. I don’t, I want to keep you happy.
Gatter: I was going to say $50, because I know places that did $50, too. But see we don’t, we’re not in it for the money, and we don’t want to be in a position of being accused of selling tissue, and stuff like that. On the other hand, there are costs associated with the use of our space, and that kind of stuff, so what were you thinking about?
Buyer: Exactly. Way higher than that.
Gatter: Mhm.
Buyer: So I’d like to start at around $100.
Gatter: Okay. Now this is for tissue that you actually take, not just tissue that the person volunteers but you can’t find anything, right?
Buyer: Exactly. What is, what we can use, what is intact. So that’s why I’m saying no, don’t lowball, I want you to be happy.

lazygal

So again, why is it not ok to use the tissue and body parts of an aborted foetus for medical purposes, but it is ok to use those of a foetus from a natural miscarriage? What should happen to aborted foetuses?

credoie

lazygal wrote: »

What should happen to aborted foetuses?

You are asking the wrong question. Why kill children at all???!!

lazygal

credoie wrote: »

You are asking the wrong question. Why kill children at all???!!

Some women will always want to kill their child, aka have an abortion. They have always done so and always will. It is happening and it is legal in Ireland under very strict conditions. If you can afford and are able to travel you can access abortion relatively easily.
What should happen to aborted foetuses?

robdonn

credoie wrote: »

Gatter: I was going to say $50, because I know places that did $50, too. But see we don’t, we’re not in it for the money, and we don’t want to be in a position of being accused of selling tissue, and stuff like that. On the other hand, there are costs associated with the use of our space, and that kind of stuff, so what were you thinking about?

Sorry, what kind of point were you trying to make with this?

credoie

robdonn wrote: »

Sorry, what kind of point were you trying to make with this?

all on tape

“Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it’s fine, if it’s still low, then we can bump it up,” she said. “I want a Lamborghini.”

robdonn

credoie wrote: »

all on tape

I don't think that poor woman ever did get her Lamborghini...

So they were discussing money, which is not new, shocking or illegal.

credoie

robdonn wrote: »

I don't think that poor woman ever did get her Lamborghini...

So they were discussing money, which is not new, shocking or illegal.

You think or you know?? They pay their CEO excess of 600K.

lazygal

credoie wrote: »

You think or you know?? They pay their CEO excess of 600K.

What should the CEO of a large organisation be paid?

I'd still like clarity on the difference in using body parts from aborted foetuses and babies who died a 'natural' death, and what a 'natural' death is.

robdonn

credoie wrote: »

You think or you know?? They pay their CEO excess of 600K.

Do you want to focus this conversation on the Lamborghini joke?

The Randy Riverbeast

I would imagine 600k/year is enough for a Lamborghini. Never really looked into it. Might have to go second hand?

lazygal

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

I would imagine 600k/year is enough for a Lamborghini. Never really looked into it. Might have to go second hand?

https://www.truecar.com/prices-new/lamborghini/

You can pick one up for $200k.

Overheal

credoie wrote:

If we are talking about double standards then its the pro-abortion side that has it. For years they have said the baby was just cells, tissue.. Yet when the same industry went to ""donate"" tissue all if a sudden we have human hearts and lungs...

Perhaps that is your misunderstanding then, but I understand that "tissue" can biologically speaking be most of everything in the body - in this case, of the terminated fetus. It is not a surprise to anyone familiar with abortion that fetus' as part of natural course develop hands, feet, limbs, nerve tissue, organ tissue and respective organs, etc.

You think or you know??

By direct virtue of you asking that question, you don't know either

You are asking the wrong question. Why kill children at all???!!

You're asking a different question for a different thread. The abortion discussion is here. I will continue to assume for the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming abortion is legal and that we will not debate the morality of that. It is one aspect of several in this situation. The salient topic, here, is what happens to fetal remains after an abortion; one which has already been carried out and you had no say in whether that was performed or not. If your argument is going to continue to be to side-step this entire conversation and keep soapboxing that 'we shouldn't be killing babies at all' then what are we even doing here, really?

They pay their CEO excess of 600K.

That's pretty low for a CEO in the USA - not that I particularly enjoy the vast income disparity between the top 5% of Americans and the bottom 95%, but again that's another topic for another thread. For the purposes of this thread, her compensation is patently average among chief executive officers: http://www1.salary.com/Chief-Executive-Officer-salary.html

As for the lambo tangent, it was quite evidently a joke. Do you know of many Planned Parenthood personnel with Lamborghinis, in actual point of fact? Even as a non-profit, the company still has to attract personnel to operate it, and not many people with the credentials to do so would do it altruistically. I as an engineer if I am doing the same work should expect relatively similar compensation in either a for-profit or a non-profit if they are both requesting the same scope of work. The same for a CEO. I suggest revising your understanding of nonprofits: they still have to pay people, and operate. Just because your company is a non-profit, it doesn't make the lights and heat in the office operate by magic and your employees come looking for work for free.

credoie

Just out of curiosity. Are there ANY pro-life mods??