When the antiabortion movement meets the antivaccine movement...

As judged by the number of needles, it meets the pro-acupuncture movement too.

The return of "homologous recombinaltion[sic] tiniker[sic]!"

"92% of children who are vaccinated have been potentially injected [...]"

Do I dare to ask where this 92% comes from? Just curious to learn if it's deep proctology or maimed statistics.

Went to the Daliy Beast article. The comment section has an interesting mix of nutties, although the majority seem to want to focus on the Planned Parenthood videos.

I was reading through the 2011 RI article on Joe Mercola's take on the same topic and come across an interesting comment by JayK:

You have to wonder if they’d be just as freaked out over a blood transfusion and all that scary DNA recombining inside their precious snowflake. You never hear about the burial of the survivors of blood transfusions, now do you?

Just to put the "injected with human DNA" into a broader perspective.

I really am trying to understand the thought processes behind how fetal DNA has all these magical properties, but adult DNA apparently doesn't.

Otherwise, sex would cause autism I suppose.*

But what really got me is this quote:

"taking a baby and chopping it up to make vaccines"

Deisher has apparently never ever met a cell culture.

There is the other problem with this narrative is that both of the human cell cultures are 50 years old.

*In a way it does, but not in the way that anti-vaxxers think.

Another point in common with both anti-vax and anti-abortion loons is that they both seem to care a hell of a lot more for the unborn baby than they do for the ones out in the world.

The anti-abortion folks generally opt for the earliest possible definition of life at conception and will fight tooth and nail and gun and bomb to protect those undifferentiated cells. Once the baby is birthed (at no cot to them usually), the baby is abandoned until old enough to send to war or birth more babies. These antis, as a rule do not support healthcare or welfare or any other social welfare programs.

The anti-vaxers will fight tooth and nail and lie and lawsuit to keep their offspring exposed and far more susceptible to preventable disease. They probably mostly care for the preborn as an excuse to fight vaccines.

For people who call themselves Christians, the anti-abortion crowd has a remarkably casual attitude about bearing false witness.

The best way to eliminate the need for elective abortions is through effective sex ed, family planning, and long-term contraceptives. That the religious fundamentalists are also utterly against these proves the lie that drives them: their real goal is not to protect fetuses, but to guarantee them a constant supply of "fallen women" to whom they can look down upon and feel superior, and to serve as warning to their own females of what happens to those that step out of line.

Honestly, human lives are the last thing a fetishistic control-freak death cult that loathes sentience and self-determination could give a crap about. Pissing false witness over everyone else to get their own way is only to be expected, for how can they engage in reasoned argument when reason itself is the enemy?

@MikeMa - I'm not anti-abortion myself. However, I suspect someone who was would argue that they are against murder at any age after conception, and thus their concern for the fetus/person remains constant. Someone could be anti-abortion and believe in any level of social services without necessarily being a hypocrite as you suggest.

@ ChrisP

I really am trying to understand the thought processes behind how fetal DNA has all these magical properties

To play the armchair psychologist, I think "magical properties" is really the right wording on these topics.

Blood and fetus are not involved as biological entities, but as concepts, like a religious icon. And as such, they are ascribed religious/magical properties, and are more or less disconnected from the real properties of their biological counterparts.
I don't know if we can talk about totemization, or if there is a better word (reification? no, that's the other way round).

When the debate is about ethics, using the cultural concepts associated with fetuses has its place. That's why I won't mock people who are weary of a vaccine because it was produced using a fetus-derived cell line. I think they are misinformed and/or wrong, but I understand their position.

Now, people who truly believe we are grounding babies to make vaccines, or for whose the "aborted fetus matter" is just another way to unduly worry about the purity of their bodily fluids...

The idea that promiscuous DNA is taken up by our bodies to horribly detrimental effect is also a staple of the anti-GMO movement.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/10/17/can-genes-pass-from-ge…

Somehow this dread danger applies only to GMOs, although it is just as likely that we are at risk of biological transformation from alien DNA creeping into our genomes.every time we eat a ham sandwich or a salad.

I have learned to embrace this possibility, proudly displaying my "Food Tastes Better With DNA" t-shirt (should be fun to wear it to the opening of the new Whole Foods store near me).

@Mephistopheles O'Brien
I tried to make my comment more gray than black and white. I seem to have failed. I find that the people with whom I argue the pros and cons of abortion are far more fixated on the unborn rather than the young child. They are not in favor of murder certainly but they do TEND to not support things that would sustain, support or advance the lives of babies after they are born. Healthcare, school lunches, vaccine programs, after school programs, etc.

I find this is in no way a monolithic culture. As with all groups there are a wide range of attitudes but there are enough of the hypocrites to make it noteworthy in my opinion.

“Food Tastes Better With DNA” t-shirt

That's what makes the bacon so dangerous.

Just the other day ( "Connecting the dots....; Natural News) Old Reliable Mikey mentioned 'organ harvesting' and 'post-birth abortions'- i.e. killing infants for fun and profit, I suppose- both procedures which are near and dear to the hearts of card-carrying 'leftists'.

I've always suspected** that despite their superficial, voiced support for women, Mike and the other idiot would rather we return to the good old days when women kept their place in the kitchen and as child-carers rather than as independent beings, thus abortion- in any form- as well as pharmaceutical birth control are anathema because they have given women real control over their own bodies.

'Back to Nature','Back to the Earth' and bringing back the 'Traditional Family' do not include women taking that kind of control. I believe that this is the hidden message beneath their outward ranting which they dare not say aloud because their support would dwindle grievously. Women buying their products are probably their chief economic support.

AS I've written previously, they both must carefully create a message that appeals to conservatives and liberals in order to get both sides' business but their true bent would have us all back in the 1890s- except for computers because they can be used to sell products and modern factories which manufacture their witches' brew of supplements.

** and believe me, I've heard and read incredible amounts of their bilge and tripe.

@MikeMa - I probably read more into it than was intended. I've seen similar comments posted on a picture and passed around various social sites. Being somewhat literal minded with these things, I find fault with most slogans. I also find that they're often not intended as the basis for a conversation but as an attempt to stigmatize those with whom the poster does not agree. Naturally, this does not apply in the current discussion.

Speaking as a Christian (and married to a man who is way more devout than I am), MikeMa is absolutely correct about fundies. Sex is bad unless it makes babies; so all contraceptions, testing services, vaccines like HPV, etc are of the Devil.

I am projecting here, but I'm pretty sure that when the state of Indiana defunded Planned Parenthood, thereby indirectly contributing to the current HIV epidemic in Scott County, it was seen by this bunch as no more than just desserts.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" isn't even on their radar.

Apologies -- the original comment was from has and not MikeMa (but Mike's not too far off the mark, either).

MikeMa@12:

I find that the people with whom I argue the pros and cons of abortion are far more fixated on the unborn rather than the young child. They are not in favor of murder certainly but they do TEND to not support things that would sustain, support or advance the lives of babies after they are born. Healthcare, school lunches, vaccine programs, after school programs, etc.

Religion fundamentally thrives on fear, pain, and poverty. The last thing it wants is full, happy, and enriched lives making secularists of us all.

has, are you familiar with Hanlon's razor? "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity." In this case, these ideas held by American fundamentalists are based on beliefs about "self-sufficiency" and "independence" that run directly counter to both evidence and the teachings of Christ.

For comparison purposes, Saudi Arabia is run by fundamentalists, but it is a massive welfare state.

There is some interesting reading on Sound Choices facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/SoundChoicePharm

They are promoting the videos claiming Planned Parenthood selling body parts. Plus the announcement of the funeral for Dr. Deisher's son.

What gets me is that instead of asking for donations to established cancer foundations, they want them to go to Sound Choice. From that Facebook entry: "Memorial contributions may be made to Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute to continue the research on Lymphoma and Vaccines."

While I am very sympathetic to her loss, I am not happy that she is using as a way to fund raise and go further into anti-science.

The heavily edited tapes reminds me of how ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) was destroyed. ACORN increased voter turnout among minorities and lower SES and aided the same with housing. The tapes were made by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles who contacted the late Andrew Breitbart who played it up to the hilt. Our Congress stopped ALL funding to ACORN prior to any hearing/investigation. Later it was proven the tapes were heavily edited. In fact, in my home town, the ACORN representative actually called the police to report suspicious persons. ACORN, a community organizing group, doing a lot of good was put out of business. I hope this is NOT a repeat, that Planned Parenthood will weather this and, perhaps, by showing the dishonesty and ruthlessness of their opponents will actually discredit them and come out stronger.

@MikeMa

The most concise statement I have encountered on the fundamentalist perspective on children:

"Society's responsibility for a child begins at conception and ends at birth."

So, you affirm that some of the vaccines today came from aborting babies to grind them up to make vaccines. Kudos.
It's always good to have at least some honesty.

“Even though abortion services make up only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s activity, with the other 97% of services going for contraception, treatment and tests for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screenings, and other women’s health services, Planned Parenthood remains a target of the antiabortion movement.”

Maybe PP remains a target of the antiabortion movement because PP performs about a third of the million abortions per year in the U.S. and PP is probably the single biggest abortion provider in the world, and because services going for contraception, treatment and tests for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screenings, and other women’s health services should be available through countless other health care programs paid for through Obamacare or other insurance. And maybe because half of PP funding is from the federal government, and so, half of every abortion is financed with MY tax dollars.

Maybe because the ghastly mentality that makes PP possible cares more about parts and nothing about the whole. The Grim Reaper harvesting body parts with not a care from whence the harvest comes.

Here’s a USA Today opinion from a liberal columnist for The Daily Beast:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/21/planned-parenthood-abo…

See, King Ahab lied about someone for his personal benefit. Do you remember what happened to him? Do you really think lying for your personal benefit will help you here?

So, you affirm that some of the vaccines today came from aborting babies to grind them up to make vaccines.

No. Try again.

half of every abortion is financed with MY tax dollars.

So half of one third is 50%? Really?

See Noevo:

So, you affirm that some of the vaccines today came from aborting babies to grind them up to make vaccines. Kudos

No, please don't embarrass yourself that way. If you had done any research, you would have learned that *1* baby, aborted because the mother developed rubella (back in the days when to get an abortion meant a whole medical review by a ethics group). No one was aborting babies for vaccines.

As for PP - again, you are embarrassing. NO federal monies can be used for abortions. So no, your tax dollars are NOT going towards ANY abortion. If your feeling is that the fact PP exists and provides other healthcare along with abortions means that they are getting federal money for abortions, you're just wrong.

I had very good health insurance as a girl. I still used Planned Parenthood because they were less expensive than a regular doctor. I got my paps from them, birth control, and STD testing. I suppose you are a fan of those "Family Planning" places that are essentially false fronts for forced childbirth.

The USA Today piece barely acknowledges the tapes were heavily edited to skew what the PP representative said. And the writer doesn't give her own bias. But I bet I could place her, from her rantings, in a minute. (Pro-life, pro-death penalty, anti-contraception, who-give-a-**** -about-the-child-after-its-born-the-mom-should-suffer-for-her-sins).

And Liberal? I don't think that word means what you think it means, nor does she.

@Opus:
“Society’s responsibility for a child begins at conception and ends at birth.”

Yup.

@See Noevo
Reading comprehension is not your thing. So sad.

because services going for contraception, treatment and tests for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screenings, and other women’s health services should be available through countless other health care programs

Yes, they should be. But in most parts of the country, they aren't. Sure, Obamacare will pay for that stuff -- but it doesn't really matter if there isn't a clinic in the area willing to accept that compensation.

Of *course* PP is targeted because it is the largest abortion provider. But strangely no one ever seems to step up and tackle the one strategy that would actually work: outcompete them for all those non-abortion services. *That* is when I realize how hypocritical the anti-abortion movement really is.

@See Noevo
You really should read the article before commenting, although doing so would imply that you're willing to take in information that would challenge your views.

Reading comprehension is not your thing. So sad.

No, trolling is its thing.

We may be looking at another 1000 comment thread.

To MI Dawn #26:

“No, please don’t embarrass yourself that way. If you had done any research, you would have learned that *1* baby, aborted because the mother developed rubella (back in the days when to get an abortion meant a whole medical review by a ethics group). No one was aborting babies for vaccines.”

So, at least “*1* baby”, after being killed, was used to develop a vaccine.

“As for PP – again, you are embarrassing. NO federal monies can be used for abortions. So no, your tax dollars are NOT going towards ANY abortion.”

I see.
It’s like the unemployed drug addict who spends $1000/month on crack.
In a “good” month he earns $1000/month from under-the-table odd jobs and drug sales.
But he gets $1000/month from his despairing parents and friends, on the grounds that he NOT use ANY of it for drugs.
And he agrees! He promises!

But many months aren’t so “good.”
However, he ALWAYS gets his crack.

I'm looking for a statistic... Seems I heard that only ABs preformed rather late in a term can yield tissue appropriate for research purposed. What percentage of Planned Parenthood ABs are "late"?

As I recall, PP is very much against mandatory ultrasounds for the potential accomplice (a.k.a. the pregnant patron).

But I wonder if PP insists on an ultrasound before harvest?

I'm betting they do.

"So, you affirm that some of the vaccines today came from aborting babies to grind them up to make vaccines. Kudos."

What an effing idiot -- and I see that he is once again setting himself up in opposition to the teachings of the Church to which he says he belongs.

What See Noevo wants is the Catholic church of the Middle Ages: A political organization that controlled kings and rulers, and made no effort to follow the teachings of its founders. In other words, what he wants is in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ himself.

As I recall, PP is very much against mandatory ultrasounds

As well they should, since it's a invasive medical procedure that serves no medical purpose in this case. The proposed legal requirements server only political ends.

Linda @30 responding to See Neovo:

doing so would imply that you’re willing to take in information that would challenge your views.

In See Neovo's case, we can be pretty much certain that will never happen.

I urge my fellow commenters not to fall prey to SOWOTI syndrome. See Neovo simply isn't worth your time.

The idea that promiscuous DNA is taken up by our bodies to horribly detrimental effect is also a staple of the anti-GMO movement.

It imperils the Purity of the Bloodline.

To Gray Falcon #36:

Do belong to the same church as Willie Parker?

“Mississippi abortion doctor Willie Parker — who was lauded by Esquire for his “abortion ministry” — ran with the trope that direct quotes from a Planned Parenthood doctor constitute a vicious attack, but went a step further: He compared Nucatola to Jesus. “It's no secret that my frame of reference for the work that I do and in terms of generating compassion is related to my religious understanding and, in particular, my Christian religious understanding,” Parker told Cosmopolitan magazine. “I'm thinking about a strong parallel between what's happening to my colleague (Nucatola) and the trial week of Jesus before he was crucified (as) he was marched from place to place, asked to answer allegations.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/21/planned-parenthood-abo…

Specifically, the WI-38 cell line is a human diploid fibroblast cell line derived from a three month old fetus aborted therapeutically in 1962 in the US.

Waitwaitwait. The WI-38 abortion was elective and Swedish.

The abortion that gave rise to the RA 27/3 vaccine strain was in 1964 and therapeutic, as a result of the U.S. rubella epidemic going on.

“As for PP – again, you are embarrassing. NO federal monies can be used for abortions. So no, your tax dollars are NOT going towards ANY abortion.”

I see.
It’s like the unemployed drug addict who spends $1000/month on crack.

Hey, S.N., how big of a chunk of this $71 billion (PDF) do you suppose goes to the RCC?

^ The locations of the missing blockquote tags I hope are obvious.

hdb @39 --

Purity of the Bloodline

Not to mention their -- essence.

See Noevo- From a strictly literal interpretation of the Scriptures, abortion, even late-term abortion isn't a sin. For example, the book of Exodus lists the penalty for killing a pregnant mother as death, but causing her to miscarry is punished with a fine.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/bible.shtml

So, at least “*1* baby”, after being killed, was used to develop a vaccine.

A baby whose mother was infected by rubella.

This. Right here.

That's why I really hate so-called pro-life people.
They will swear up-and-down, "oh yes, if the life of the mother is at risk, if there is some real medical reason, abortion is an option, we are not barbarians".

But whenever the chips get down, suddenly it's "whatever you do, don't touch the baby". And too bad if the mother suffers, becomes barren, or dies, it's just God's will.

Next, SN will tell us that ectopic pregnancies shouldn't be terminated.

To Gray Falcon #45:

I guess, with your Jesus, it would have been no big deal if the unwed pregnant teen-ager, Mary, had later second-thoughts, and decided not to go through with it.

P.S.
“And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" [Luke 1:34]

“and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.” [Mat 1:19]

P.P.S.
Elizabeth might have thought it WOULD be a big deal:
“And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

Lighten up, Liz. What mother? What Lord? You don’t see no baby, now do you?

See, would you abort the fourth child of someone, born out of wedlock, whose first three children who died before the age of three?

If not, why would you have allowed Adolf Hitler to live?

Next, SN will tell us that ectopic pregnancies shouldn’t be terminated.

It will say whatever it needs to say to keep the fish biting and continue its inane and irrelevant ravings.

Stupid anti-abortionists can't even spell "foetus".

Stupid anti-abortionists can’t even spell “foetus”.

Sorry to say this, but my Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary Second Edition Copyright 1983 lists the definition of "foetus" as "n. same as fetus"

In other vaccine news: Nigeria reports one year without a case of polio , leaving just two countries where polio is endemic, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

On Facebook, people are busily repeating that polio isn't gone, just being called something else, such as Acute Flaccid Paralysis or Gullain-Barre Syndrome. Can one of you provide link to a concise rebuttal of this?

@See Noevo:

"As I recall, PP is very much against mandatory ultrasounds for the potential accomplice (a.k.a. the pregnant patron)."

Ah, at last! A forced-birther who has begun to admit their real intentions: to charge the pregnant woman with (what? attempted murder? premeditated murder?) for exercising control over her own body. It would be like something out of "The Handmaid's Tale". Anti-abortion has never been about the value of life. If that were even marginally true, as many have observed for years, those who so rabidly support it would be working to improve the lot of the living. Instead, they are invariably the staunchest opponents of safety nets and social programs that help women and children. And many are great advocates for the very things which are most inimical to life: war, guns, capital punishment.

To anti-abortionists, life is of importance only while it resides in a non-viable state inside a woman's womb. Once it emerges as a functioning human being, its quality of life often ceases to be of value to the people who purport to protect it.

Because anti-abortion is really about one thing: a political tool for sustaining male patriarchy by controlling women. Birth control fails. And If women can not make autonomous decisions about when and if they will have a child, they cease to have any real agency: economically, professionally -- humanly.

https://rationalcatholicblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/under-the-aspect-…

^^ a response from one of the blogs cited in this post.

How unfortunate. She saw through the pseudoscience of Theresa Deisher but couldn't see through the deception of David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress. Oh, well, i suppose that might have been asking too much.

Given that race seems to be raised by the Left on virtually every topic these days, I’m a little surprised it hasn’t been addressed on this subject.

Here’s something you don’t see every day:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/nyc-more-black-ba…

It’s a wonder Revs Al and Jesse haven’t been screaming non-stop. I wonder why they aren't?

"It's a wonder Revs Al and Jesse haven't been screaming non-stop."

No it isn't. B lack women choose abortion; just as white women do. Given the economic divide that still separates whites from blacks in this country, the roots of this decision probably rest in hard economic reality. Abortion allows women to focus scarce resources on the children they already have.

“Black Lives Matter”??

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/27/black-lives-dont-mat…

It’s a wonder Revs Al and Jesse haven’t been screaming non-stop. I wonder why they aren’t?

Yes, AoA was "wondering" about "that" a year ago, but given your obsession with mind-numbingly narcissistic pratfalls, I'm not surprised at your failure to double-check whether what comes at the end of "submit comment" will be unintentionally hilarious.

You know, I see SN as visualizing women being dragged kicking and screaming into PP for abortions, rather than the true image of them going in OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, having thought seriously about what they are doing and why.

SN is obviously male. He has NO idea what a woman thinks about. And he obviously thinks it's only the "loose women" who have abortions, when the fact is that a fair number (don't have the detail at my fingertips) are MARRIED women who are terminating a problematic pregnancy.

SN: I'm sure you, like my then employer, think I should have let my ectopic pregnancy kill me, rather than terminate it, leaving my husband and 2 young children motherless. Fortunately, I had a compassionate doctor who fudged my records and "didn't see any cardiac movement" on the ultrasound, so I could be treated before the tube ruptured.

the true image of them going in OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL
Women? Free will? THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

HDB: that made me snorffle. :)

Recent studies report that an overwhelming number of women do NOT regret their choice to abort.

So, at least “*1* baby”, after being killed, was used to develop a vaccine.

That isn’t correct, see. No baby was killed: instead, a fetus which had become infected with rubella was aborted.

@JGC,
Odd, right? The result of the loss of that fetus resulted in a lot more healthy babies. No sense of perspective.

#23 See Noevo

Kirsten Powers is hardly a liberal; know your pundits if you are going to make claims about them.

You have to love people in the comfort of their predominantly White, suburban, well-to-do homes looking at predominantly Black, poor women and saying, "You're killing your child."
Then the women turn around and say, "Will you help me raise it?"
To which the privileged say, "Hell, no. You're the one who got pregnant. How is it MY problem?"
As far as I'm concerned, men shouldn't be allowed to make any policy decisions on women's health. I think the ladies can sort it out just fine without the piggish rhetoric of privileged, well-to-do, "Christian"-until-they-need-to-cheat-on-their-wives men.

Let me buy you a virtual drink, Mr Najera!

Ren couldn't be more correct.

Can't believe there are still some ''pro-lifers'' today in 2015. Hell, even our asshole of a prime minister in Canada tried to outlaw it, and failed.

How do these people even think that outlawing abortions would be the least bit practical?
If you make exceptions for those who might have health complications and or who got raped, well everybody is gonna claim to have been raped to get an abortion.
If you don't wanna make an exception for those women, well congratulations! You're an immense asshole.

The problem is, once you remove the anti-abortion platform, what you're left with is a belief system utterly opposed to the teachings of Christ.

Does that mean I can't think it's bad for cops to kill black people unless I also believe in giving everyone a stipend to live on? Just curious.

I'm given to understand that the Pope opposes abortions but is entirely in favor of aid to the poor. Presumably some number of Catholics would also have this stand.

Kirsten Powers is hardly a liberal
Powers

prefers the term "orthodox Christian" over "evangelical" to describe herself, given the "cultural baggage" around the word "evangelical".

Words mean whatever she wants them to mean. Evidently a kindred spirit.

Here’s a USA Today opinion from a liberal columnist for The Daily Beast:
What say you, Whackyweedia?

Powers [...] in 2011 published a piece in The Daily Beast promoting the theory that access to birth control does not prevent abortions, which she later admitted contains "a serious error" that "invalidates" her piece.

I see. Another obsessive, incompetent crank, vying for the hotly-contested position of "Pundit wrong about the most number of things"..

Concerning the question of how many abortions were involved in the development of the controversial cell lines and vaccines:

Hayflick reported using 19 separate electively aborted fetuses in developing the technique for culturing cell lines, and which eventually resulted in WI-38.

Plotkin and colleagues published an article documenting 40 abortions in developing the virus strain RA 27/3.

Drs. J. Hoskins and Plotkin tested RA 27/3 on cell strains and additional cell strains were developed from 21 elective abortions.
NCBC quarterly 2006, A Brief History of Human Diploid Cell Strains Rene Leiva, M.D.

I see that you chose not to post my previous comment which called you out for the lie that this group only released 2 "heavily edited" videos when they released the full length videos at the same time. (yes I know they released 2 more videos since this last comment).

But why the lack of integrity? You should acknowledge that they released the full length videos as well. And you should acknowledge that the videos are not edited any more than the average news cast and less edited than John Stewart.

Anti-vaxxers could lose their religious exemption in New York under proposed law

@Mike: The reason your post didn't show up is that you were using a different e-mail address than previous posts, basically nonsense characters in front of a Yahoo.com domain. WordPress thus treated you as a new commenter, and new commenters have to have their first comment approved before they can comment freely. I went through this with a commenter named johnny, and I got sick of approving new e-mail identities for him. So I stopped. If he remembers one of the identities that was approved before, maybe I'll let him post again. Or not. He was highly irritating, and his morphing e-mail address was just one reason why.

It irritates the crap out of me when people keep using morphing throwaway e-mail addresses. Every time that happens I have to try to remember if this is a new commenter, who should be approved, or an old one morphing e-mail addresses. Sometimes I have to search IP addresses to see if the comment comes from the same place and is therefore likely to be the same person. So I don't worry about it any more. If I see a comment from someone who's an old commenter, someone who looks familiar, doing the old nonsense characters in front of a Gmail or other free account, I no longer approve the comment. That person can go back and either use a real, valid e-mail address to comment or pick one of his previous nonsense e-mail addresses and stick with it. If such a commenter can't remember his previous nonsense e-mail addresses, it's not my problem any more.

I let your comment through just this once to stop your whining about censorship.Hope you remembered what e-mail you used for that, because I won't approve any more new ones from you.

Well, Orac, consider yourself lucky (or unlucky as the case may be) that due to a mistake in clicking the wrong email address in a FireFox drop-down you are only one of three people on the internet that has my personal email address.

Concerning the remark about chopping up babies:

Dr Norby, who was responsible for procuring fetal specimens for delivery to Hayflick at the Wistar Institute:
“My predecessor, as professor of virology at the Karolinksa Institute in Stockholm, Sven Gard, spent a sabbatical year at the Wistar Institute in 1959 two years after the institution had been taken over by the dynamic Koprowski. One of my duties as a young student in the laboratory in Stockholm was to dissect human fetuses from legal abortions and send organs to the Wistar Institute. Such material was the source of many important studies of cell lines at the Institute, such as Leonard Hayflick’s study of WI-38 cells.

The Serial Cultivation of Human Diploid Cell Lines, Hayflick and Moorhead:

"Isolation of primary cells.-Two methods of cell cultivation from primary tissue were employed in this study with identical qualitative results. The use of trypsin yielded far more cells initially than cultures prepared from fragmented or minced tissue. Since high cell yields were not required from the starting tissue, most cultures were started from fragmented or minced tissue. Such preparations gave fewer cells initially than could have been obtained from tissue treated with the enzyme prepara- tion. Minced preparations were obtained by cutting the tissue in a Petri dish con- taining GM with paired scalpels or a scissors until the size of each piece approxi- mated l-4 mm3. Fragmented preparations were obtained by tearing apart the tissue with two pairs of forceps in a Petri dish containing GM until the pieces could no longer conveniently be grasped and shredded. The entire contents of the dish were emptied into one or more Pyrex Blake bottles (surface area 100 cmZ), depending on the size of the original starting tissue. The fragmented lungs, for example, from a three-month-old human fetus were usually placed in four Blake bottles. Treat- ment of tissue with trypsin was done, in general, according to the method of Fer- nandes [ll]. "

Do you equate dissecting fetal tissue with chopping up babies?

Fetus
: a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

Mince
1 a : to cut or chop into very smallpieces

Won't someone stop Big Museum from drowning all the innocent babies??

@#83 -- Baby. Not fetus. They are not medically or legally defined in the same way.

I've heard many doctors refer to the growing baby in the uterus. I'm guessing the term is being used in this way. It's not uncommon.

You should give this a listen (and read the news article link):
http://www.radiolab.org/story/grays-donation/

@A.H. #86

Yep, doctors sometimes use common vernacular rather than precise technical terms when talking to patients.

Doesn't mean that the technical definitions of the words do not exist you can make any word mean anything you want.

There should be an or between the exist and the you. Not sure where it wandered off to. Will probably show up at random in a future post.

I don't think I understand. Are you saying that if a person describes a child in the womb as a baby they are either ignorant or lying or making words mean anything they want? The fact is these words are used like this for a reason and people understand their meaning.

The fact is that "chopping up babies" is not only deliberately inflammatory, it's inaccurate.

In what way?

The picture one gets from the phrase "chopping up babies" is someone using a meat cleaver in the nursery (which would have been an interesting scene in Sweeney Todd, though implausible because babies don't shave). At best it's colloquial and inexact. At worst, it's inaccurate because it ignores the distinction between developmental stages.

My father was prescribed rat poison after his heart valve replacement.

I've noticed that the fluid that comes out of the tap at home is a major component of liquid industrial waste.

So is mincing up fetuses less problematic? I think many people would think these are essentially the same.

So is mincing up fetuses less problematic? I think many people would think these are essentially the same.

Many people do indeed believe that, say, a blastocyst is a human being with rights equivalent to those of a woman, but that does not make it so.

There are many people who think that dissecting fetal tissue and chopping up babies are the same; which doesn't make it any less inaccurate.

Hayflick himself describes the mincing of fetuses. Mince means chop. He also describes tearing. Others describe dissecting the fetuses.

I don't know what happened to my tonsils - I doubt they were given a proper burial (my parents didn't pay for a headstone). They may well have been dissected, in which case, we could say they were chopping up children since I was a child at the time.

I think many people would think these are essentially the same.

What "many people"?

Same ones who think the earth is only a few thousand years old?

Who knows, my tonsils may have been minced - I was unconscious at the time.

I guess you'll have to argue your case with Hayflick. I have no problem with the use of these words. It's obvious to me that a child was dissected, in whole, and that abortion and dissection are not equivalent to having your tonsils out.

Hayflick's not the one posting here.

So given that the abortions were not done expressly to provide a fetus to be used for scientific purposes, what is your issue with using the resulting non-viable fetus? While the cells were clearly alive, one could not argue that they would ever become viable babies after the abortions.

The Serial Cultivation of Human Diploid Cell Lines, Hayflick and Moorhead:

“Isolation of primary cells.-Two methods of cell cultivation from primary tissue were employed in this study with identical qualitative results. The use of trypsin yielded far more cells initially than cultures prepared from fragmented or minced tissue. Since high cell yields were not required from the starting tissue, most cultures were started from fragmented or minced tissue. Such preparations gave fewer cells initially than could have been obtained from tissue treated with the enzyme prepara- tion. Minced preparations were obtained by cutting the tissue in a Petri dish con- taining GM with paired scalpels or a scissors until the size of each piece approxi- mated l-4 mm3. Fragmented preparations were obtained by tearing apart the tissue with two pairs of forceps in a Petri dish containing GM until the pieces could no longer conveniently be grasped and shredded. The entire contents of the dish were emptied into one or more Pyrex Blake bottles (surface area 100 cmZ), depending on the size of the original starting tissue. The fragmented lungs, for example, from a three-month-old human fetus were usually placed in four Blake bottles. Treat- ment of tissue with trypsin was done, in general, according to the method of Fer- nandes [ll]. “

It’s obvious to me that a child was dissected

Not necessarily "dissected":

http://i.imgur.com/tlq1PL1.jpg

So, Hayflick referred to it as tissue. And?

That description does sound like particularly fine mincing.

I wonder where A.H.'s indignation of what happened to Henrietta Lacks and her cells. Because the fetuses that are only donated with the woman's permission, which is not what happened with the Lacks family.

Or if he objects to medical school anatomy labs where donated bodies are dissected.

Many years ago a co-worker described his wife's treatment by their parish priest when her fetus died inside her body due to rubella in the early 1960s. It had to be removed by a physician. Even though the fetus was not going to miraculously come back to life: the priest excommunicated her.

I wonder if A.H. agrees with that priest, because it is all about the fetus. Not the child nor the pregnant woman, and definitely not the future children that are saved due to the research. Like those who never got Congenital Rubella Syndrome, or those who get the conditions discussed in the RadioLabs podcast I linked to.

By the way, the news article that the podcast is based on:
http://articles.philly.com/2015-03-30/news/60606995_1_cord-blood-liver-…

Minced Aborted Fetal Tissue is the worst rock band name ever, btw. Apparently Dying Fetus, Foetus, Aborted Fetus, and Fetus Factory have followings, though.

In reference to dissecting and fetuses:

Dr Norby, who was responsible for procuring fetal specimens for delivery to Hayflick at the Wistar Institute:
“My predecessor, as professor of virology at the Karolinksa Institute in Stockholm, Sven Gard, spent a sabbatical year at the Wistar Institute in 1959 two years after the institution had been taken over by the dynamic Koprowski. One of my duties as a young student in the laboratory in Stockholm was to

dissect human fetuses from legal abortions and send organs to the Wistar Institute. Such material was the source of many important studies of cell lines at the Institute, such as Leonard Hayflick’s study of WI-38 cells. "

The Serial Cultivation of Human Diploid Cell Lines, Hayflick and Moorhead:

"Isolation of primary cells.-Two methods of cell cultivation from primary tissue were employed in this study with identical qualitative results. The use of trypsin yielded far more cells initially than cultures prepared from fragmented or minced tissue. Since high cell yields were not required from the starting tissue, most cultures were started from fragmented or minced tissue. Such preparations gave fewer cells initially than could have been obtained from tissue treated with the enzyme prepara- tion. Minced preparations were obtained by cutting the tissue in a Petri dish con- taining GM with paired scalpels or a scissors until the size of each piece approxi- mated l-4 mm3. Fragmented preparations were obtained by tearing apart the tissue with two pairs of forceps in a Petri dish containing GM until the pieces could no longer conveniently be grasped and shredded. The entire contents of the dish were emptied into one or more Pyrex Blake bottles (surface area 100 cmZ), depending on the size of the original starting tissue.

The fragmented lungs, for example, from a three-month-old human fetus were usually placed in four Blake bottles. Treat- ment of tissue with trypsin was done, in general, according to the method of Fer- nandes [ll]. "

If the fetuses used in development of the tissue culture methods had not be so-used, they would have been incinerated, buried in land fill, dumped in the ocean, homogenized and dumped into the sewer, or otherwise disposed of in accordance to local custom and regulations.

The antiabortion crowd seem to want to create the impression there is demand for a continuous supply of fresh human fetuses for use in production of vaccines. There is not.

AH - I've always been willing to accept the term "chop" as a replacement for "mince" (though it's imprecise, as minced is finer than chopped). That's some riveting stuff there, though no actual rivet tools were used.

In reference to dissecting and fetuses

Is there some reason why you're now just repeating the same sloppy cut and paste over and over?

Yes, because Shay didn't see where Hayflick was referring to fetuses and DGR questioned dissecting.

I'm wondering if someone can explain When does a fetus become a baby, in medical terms?

I’m wondering if someone can explain When does a fetus become a baby, in medical terms?

I'm wondering, have you ever heard of JAQing off, in internet terms?

No, Shay did not see where Hayflick was referring to chopping up babies. If you must be a propagandist at least try not to be a stupid one.

I was assuming you could read

@ AH

In reference to dissecting and fetuses:[...]

You describe a nice protocol to get isolated, live cells from a tissue sample.
So what?

If you object to the source of the tissue sample, say so. But the dissection method, by itself, hasn't much moral quandaries.
Biology is gross. Get over it.

doug's point at #112 is actually the central part of the ethical debate about using fetuses as source of cell lines. Were the fetuses specifically aborted for this, or would the abortions have been done anyway?

You're assuming that you aren't transparent.

Dr Norby describes the dissection of fetuses for use by Hayflick. A fetus is not a tissue sample.

Mephistopheles O'Brien @ 110
Ever hear of Jim Thirlwell/?

Foetus is the primary musical outlet of J. G. Thirlwell. Until 1995 the band underwent various name changes, all including the word foetus. Monikers adopted at different times include Foetus Under Glass, You've Got Foetus on Your Breath and Scraping Foetus Off The Wheel. After 1995 the name permanently became Foetus, though the related project The Foetus Symphony Orchestra was founded in 1997 and continues.

A fetus is not a tissue sample.

In spite of your statement @102, it's not a child, either.

I’m wondering if someone can explain When does a fetus become a baby, in medical terms?

At birth. For instance, that is why a fetal heart monitor is not named a "baby heart monitor".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2xi9mhmuo

See time 9:40. Not just tissues, not just cells.
No. “Intact kidneys”, “spinal cord”.

"I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it."

I guess that, all told, the target brings in about $800. See time 5:05.
But then again, maybe more. See price list at 2:36.
And some financial fine print at 3:14.

Child: 1 a : an unborn or recently born person.

If a child is prematurely delivered by surgery is it medically a fetus or a baby? If it is a baby, then the aborted children were babies that were dissected.

@Roger Kulp - I hadn't heard of Jim Thirlwell before I went looking for bands with "fetus" in their names. I did hear of Thurl Ravenscroft years ago, though, when I saw a film about the making the Disney's Haunted Mansion ride. I can now recognize the work of Mr. Ravenscroft 3 out of 4 tries.

The two are only connected (so far as I know) by the syllable "thurl".

If a child is prematurely delivered by surgery is it medically a fetus or a baby?

It depends on whether it is at a stage typically considered to be viable.

So at what stage is it considered a baby? Viable?

Just about the whole world has exploded over that dentist who shot Cecil the lion. Even Jimmy Kimmel got choked up about it last night.

That demon dentist just needs a good PR man.
Maybe he could get someone from Planned Parenthood.
I think he could quiet many of the criers if he just said he killed Cecil to harvest its organs for the betterment of lionhood.

Who knows, maybe the dentist could even use Cecil’s teeth?

Meanwhile, let's all have leonine lament, or a "Born Free" bawl.

Or a canine cry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhmCHe0B5gw

Then we will be good people.

Mephistopheles,

You’re having a pretty good month.
http://time.com/3972713/detroit-satanic-statue-baphomet/

AH - are you talking the definition of the word, or the legal issue?

@See Noevo - Thanks. As one of my minions, though, you should know they got the nose wrong. I gotta get a new head shot.

I'm asking in medical terms. Is it a fetus based on location in the womb, or is it developmental? If a premature infant was surgically delivered would it be a baby or a fetus, and based on what criteria?

IANADNDIPOOT - but from a purely practical position if if a fetus is surgically removed from the womb and is viable, that's a baby. If it's not viable once it's removed from the womb, it's not. Or it's a dead baby. Take your pick.

AH: "If a premature infant was surgically delivered would it be a baby or a fetus, and based on what criteria?"

If it can breathe air on its own.

Now I have a question: Why do you hate children more than you love fetuses? You can also answer my question between the difference of obtaining Henrietta Lacks cells and those donated fetuses.

Though better yet, where is the following quote from:
"The way I see it," Sarah Gray said, "our son got into Harvard, Duke, and Penn. He has a job. He is relevant to the world. I only hope my life can be as relevant."

What does she mean?

If it can breathe air on its own? So if a newborn needs assistance breathing it is not a baby? P.S. Fetuses are children. It's true.

The subject of “viability” has been raised several times on this blog, usually to try to bolster the position that if the human life in the womb is "non-viable", you can kill and harvest it, because then it’s not a human being human life.

Discussions of the proper definition of viability will probably never end. The definition will be what you want it to be. Bottom-line, some abortion-minded someone makes a judgment call and the deal is done.
(And better to make the judgment quickly, because time is money (see $800 above).)

Perhaps instead of wrestling with definitions, an analogy will help:
Feeling free to kill the life in the womb because it’s “non-viable” NOW is very much like our commonly-accepted practice of denying children the right to EVER get a college education in the future. We quite sensibly deny children a future college education because they are non-college material NOW.
(And this saves parents’ a lot of work and worry over how to pay for those college tuitions. Whew! College-be-gone, worry-be-gone.

And baby-be-gone. Viability schmiability.

Feeling free to kill the life in the womb because it’s “non-viable” NOW is very much like our commonly-accepted practice of denying children the right to EVER get a college education in the future.

This should be good mind-numbingly stupid. Would you care to elabloverate?

So I gather AH really hates living children, and parents who have to deal with taking to term a baby who does not have a brain.

Plus he refuses to click on links. Pity that.

Chris @142

So I gather AH really hates living children, and parents who have to deal with taking to term a baby who does not have a brain.

But Chris, that baby could have grown up to be forced birth fanatic like See Noevo or AH

Here's the definition of "fetus" from Stedman's Medical Dictionary:

In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth.

Will that do, AH?

Militant Agnostic: "But Chris, that baby could have grown up to be forced birth fanatic like See Noevo or AH"

But what are the chances if the child had Congenital Rubella Syndrome or the conditions mentioned in the last link I gave, like having absolutely no brain development? Seriously, who cares about real live children when there are fetuses to save!?

@SN

Discussions of the proper definition of viability will probably never end. The definition will be what you want it to be.

Er, no.
My own yardstick is very simple. Given current medical technology, is the fetus likely to get to term and survive a few days after the actual birth, on it own or assisted by said medical technology?
I agree there is a lot of grey area in the "a few days" part. Should it be 3 days? One week? One year?

But in the cases of ectopic pregnancies, and other various pregnancy mishaps happening in the womb, including placenta abruption and other lethal teratogenic malformations (lethal for the fetus, I mean), viability is a very clear-cut notion. You can wish otherwise, but there are documented cases where, no matter what, a pregnancy ends up with a dead baby. Or even really a bunch of cells.

I may be entertaining the idea of debating the morale of elective abortion. I wish abortions were legal, clean, but also rare.
But as long as there will be people arguing against medical abortions, such for the cases I'm talking above, I will definitively swing in the pro-choice camp.

@Chris

I hear you.
I think Militant Agnostic had a specific meaning in mind when he was talking about anencephalic people.

I find it highly hypocrite for the antivax crowd, who keep harping how autistic children are damaged goods and find excuses for parents who kill their autistic children, to join forces with the antiabortion people, who argue that all children should be kept, even dead ones apparently.

@AH

Dr Norby describes the dissection of fetuses for use by Hayflick. A fetus is not a tissue sample.

Skirting my point. Let's try again:
Do you object to abortion, or to the fact that, once a dead fetus, the remains could be used in medical research and/or preparation of medical treatments?

The two are separate events - unless you can show otherwise, by example by proving that the doctors went in the streets and hunted pregnant women to convince them to change their mind about carrying their baby to term and give it to science instead.

So I'm sorry, but I will insist. The protocol you described is for working on tissue samples from a corpse. A corpse which happens to be a freshly aborted human fetus, but a corpse nonetheless.

To Helianthus #146:

“My own yardstick [for viability] is very simple. Given current medical technology, is the fetus likely to get to term and survive a few days after the actual birth, on it own or assisted by said medical technology?”

So, your own yardstick is that viability determines humanity and such viability varies with technology. In short, you might be a human, if technology permits you to be.
...................

P.S.
Perhaps you also believe technology will become “human” and take over the earth?
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2922442/robotics/stephen-hawking-f…

@ SN

Perhaps you also believe technology will become “human” and take over the earth?

Mass Effect fan here, so no way I can answer objectively.
Although most people talking about human robots seem to confuse human appearance and human soul, for lack of a better word.

In short, you might be a human, if technology permits you to be.

No.
Viability determines viability.
I will be alive, if technology permits me to be.
My main point is that a non-viable fetus may be human, but that it mostly is, is dying or dead. And that's something which could be objectively measured and predicted.

As it happens, me and my sister are alive because medical technology permitted us to stay alive. If a modern hospital had not been available, my mom would have ended with two dead babies. Human babies, no doubt about it, but dead nonetheless.
Her mom ended with 7 dead children and one alive daughter.

I guess it comes to noone as a surprise that See Noevo's not only bad a logic but also at analogies. Way to go.

AH,

I’m asking in medical terms. Is it a fetus based on location in the womb, or is it developmental? If a premature infant was surgically delivered would it be a baby or a fetus, and based on what criteria?

The latest of the abortions under discussion was 14 weeks, IIRC, which is not viable and not a baby by any definitions that seem reasonable to me. Here's a photo of a 13-week fetus, to give some idea about what we are discussing. I don't think "baby" is honestly an accurate word to describe it, do you?

See Noevo,

We quite sensibly deny children a future college education because they are non-college material NOW.

Couldn't you extend that to terminating a pregnancy because a woman does not have the means to raise the child properly? After all, nature (God if you prefer) terminates more pregnancies than humans do, mostly because they are non-viable or have some problem. I don't really see the distinction.

Also, assuming your views* extend to capital punishment, I imagine you would prefer to force a woman to take her pregnancy to term, raise a child in horrible conditions, and then execute that child as an adult when s/he has committed an appalling crime. Why does the Christian right believe killing a 12-week fetus is a terrible sin, but killing an adult (or even a minor in some states) is perfectly acceptable?

* Which I find repulsive, just so you know. I think Jesus would be equally disgusted by the vile bigotry people like you are promoting in his name.

In short, you might be a human, if technology permits you to be.

There's somebody from the Bene Gesserit on line 2.

@ Narad

The high-handed enemy is a heck of a humanity test, no question here.

There were at least 80 abortions involved in the work of developing cell lines, and then developing the controversial vaccines using the cell lines. The gestational age of the fetuses varied.

The following quotes from doctors in the field shed light on the circumstances surrounding the use of fetal tissue for medical research:

“Human embryos of two and one-half to five months gestation were obtained from the gynaecological department of the Toronto General Hospital. They were placed in a sterile container and promptly transported to the virus laboratory of the adjacent Hospital for Sick Children. No macerated specimens were used and in many of the embryos the heart was still beating at the time of receipt in the virus laboratory.”
Joan C. Thicke, Darline Duncan, William Wood, A. E. Franklin and A. J. Rhodes; Cultivation of Poliomyelitis Virus in Tissue Culture; Growth of the Lansing Strain in Human Embryonic Tissue, Canadian Journal of Medical Science, Vol. 30, pg 231-245

“The correct way consists in having recourse to Caesarian section or to the removal of the uterus. Only in this way can bacteriological sterility be guaranteed. In either case, then, to obtain embryo cells for culture, a programmed abortion must be adopted, choosing the age of the embryo and dissecting it while still alive to remove tissues to be placed in culture media.”
Dr. Gonzalo Herranz, Professor of Histology and General Embryology at the University of Navarra, Spain

“Experiments were being performed on near-term alive aborted babies who were not even afforded the mercy of anesthetic as they writhed and cried in agony, and when their usefulness had expired, they were executed and discarded as garbage.” Dr. Ian Donald speaking about other fetal medical research at the Karolinska Institute

AH, See Noevo, I have a question. Why is it all of your "compassionate" acts require no effort or loss on your part? If you really cared about children you'd work on improving health care, education, and conditions for mothers, but neither of you lift a finger or spend a penny for that. Face it, your "morality" is just a facade to conceal the wickedness in your hearts.

I'm fairly sure you don't know anything about my work, life, care for others. Project much?

@ AH

Dr. Ian Donald speaking about other fetal medical research at the Karolinska Institute

If any of this is true, modern - and not-so-modern - ethic committees would have one thing or two to say against similar work done on animals (notably the lack of anesthetic part), so I expect they would say as much for human embryos.
Some context would be appropriate.

But we are going away from vaccines. And you are still skirting my points.
What would have happened differently, should these fetuses not have been used for cell line establishment?

AH: Tell me something. The vaccine derived from a single human fetus saved thousands of lives. Would you have had them all die for the sake of a fetus that would never have come to term?

Ever hear of Jim Thirlwell/?

I saw him at the Brixton Academy in 1989.

Gray, you are probably aware that some vaccines are not made in fetal cell lines, yes? Problem solved.

Helianthus: I'm not skirting the issue. And yes these quotes are real, and since I've sighted who/where they come from, I hope you will find out more.

There is zero point in discussing views of morality around this issue when
a. we don't even agree on the facts surrounding the procurement and use of the fetal tissue
b. we don't agree on objective standards of morality

I can pretty much assure you we won't agree.
But perhaps we can at least get the facts straight.

AH: You didn't answer my question. Would you have allowed those children to die?

AH: If they could have developed the vaccine without fetal tissue, they would have. If they were not allowed to do so, the vaccine would not have been developed. Would you have allowed those children to die?

That is pure conjecture.

objective standards of morality

Without you explicitly stating what you think those objective standards of morality are, it's hard to see if others agree with you...

But I'll take a shot in the dark and assume you think murder is bad.

part I) Do you think it is acceptable to kill another in self-defense?

part II) If yes, do you think terminating a pregnancy that is threatening the life of the mother is acceptable?

If not, why not?

AH: So is saying that the vaccine could have been developed without fetal tissue. Now, would you have allowed those children to die?

Which children? The ones killed by abortion or the ones we speculate would have been killed by lack of vaccine. Ideally, we proceed in such a way that neither group is sentenced to death. that would be my preference.

Medical Dictionary

fetus
noun fe·tus
plural fe·tus·es or chiefly British foe·tus·es or foe·ti \ˈfēt-ˌī\
Medical Definition of FETUS
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth—compare embryo

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/fetus

AH: The ones who would have died from rubella. Would you have them die for the sake of one non-viable fetus?

AH: Oh, and ideally, I would be able to fly to work by sheer force of will. I don't care about "ideally", I care about the real world.

Right, because making vaccines not using fetal tissue is the same thing as flying by force of will.

At least 80 fetuses were used.... See above#76
All of the fetuses were viable. What made them not viable was being removed from their mother and dissected, while still alive.
That pretty much wrecks viability.

AH: Answer the question. Would you have let them die?

AH: Last I checked, Many of those fetuses were infected with rubella. They most likely would have been stillborn, and caused trauma to their parents when born. Again, would you allow people to die for the sake of the stillborn?

Conjecture. The babies were alive, rubella can cause miscarriage and other medical problems, but does not necessarily do so. How is being still born more traumatic than surgical removal and dissection while alive?

See Noveo @148

No Room For Humans?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servotron

AH: Would you have let those children die of rubella? Answer the question.

AH: so you would have been perfectly fine with my mom carrying a congenital rubella baby to term, knowing it was probably going to die within the first week or so of birth? You would have been fine with the other baby, anencephalic, who would have killed her and died also, being carried to term? It's so nice that you care more about nonviable fetuses than adult women.

By the way: viability in the US is generally evaluated at birth, for any birth that occurs prior to 24-26 weeks gestation. If there are signs of viability - breathing movements, unsealed eyes - resuscitation efforts will be made. Under 24 weeks, many times the baby (it's been born, so now it is a baby) will be placed in a warm isolette with oyxgen flowing in No active measures. They either show they will live (breathing movements, steady heartbeat) or they will die (no breathing, declining heartbeat).

Unlike many European countries, we rarely use birthweight to decide. I've seen 250-400 gm babies survive, and 1000 gm babies die.

So, AH..Almost NONE of the fetuses you mentioned were viable. They would NOT have survived (especially with the available technology at the time).

Why do you like to watch babies die? Wouldn't it be kinder to them and the mother, if they have live -threatening issues, to terminate the pregnancy if the mother decides to do so? Why are you forcing women to watch their babies die?

Gray how many children are you assuming would have died of rubella? Rubella is not necessarily fatal, that is why your statements are conjecture. There is no point in answering conjecture.

MI Dawn; please reread above#76, #155,#178.

AH

making vaccines not using fetal tissue

You seem to be under the impression that changing the agent in a vaccine is akin to changing the paint job on your car.

Human cell line as growing medium wasn't just chosen randomly, or out of some desire to get to mince babies. It was selected because it made it possible to create the vaccine in the first place.

So, not using that medium would have lead directly to not having vaccines for HepA, varicella and shingles, rubella, adenovirus or rabies, which would have lead directly to there being more sickness, suffering and death in the world.

If you disagree, explain why.

Also, while you're at it, I'd appreciate you answering these two questions as well:

part I) Do you think it is acceptable to kill another in self-defense?

part II) If yes, do you think terminating a pregnancy that is threatening the life of the mother is acceptable?

If not, why not?

They shouldn't be hard questions to answer - if your standards of morality were truly objective I'd expect it to be very simple.

I don't think those questions are hard to answer, incidentally, even if I don't derive my moral compass from a deity.

I'd also like a citation for the Ian Donald quote...every citation I've found is an antiabortion site. Given that he was apparently talking about research around WWII, I suppose it's possible. However, right now, I don't believe it's a true quote.

AH: a lot of miscarriage were from congenital rubella. And the children born were blind, deaf, and usually died before age 5. Again, why do you enjoy forcing mothers to watch their babies die?

And, true, rubella isn't always fatal. But when it is caught during the early months of pregnancy, it causes Congenital Rubella Syndrome. Why on earth do you think it's benign? And do you really think it's a walk in the park to raise a severely handicapped baby from birth? Do you think it's a piece of cake to stand by helplessly knowing your child will die before you do of a congenital syndrome?

It's bad enough when it occurs from a random mutation, as it did in my cousin, as she watches 2 of her 3 children slowly regress mentally and become weaker, then wheelchair bound, then bedridden. She'll get to watch them die. Isn't that jolly? Though I bet AH will say that makes her a better Christian or something, my cousin would readily say it turned her away from religion because what kind of supreme being would torture a family in this way?

Time to cool down. And put SN and AH in the killfile before my blood pressure goes through the roof.

AH,

There were at least 80 abortions involved in the work of developing cell lines, and then developing the controversial vaccines using the cell lines. The gestational age of the fetuses varied.

Assuming this is correct, though I can find no confirmation of this, most of those vaccines are presumably no longer in use. The polio vaccine currently in use is produced using monkey cells, not human ones.

In any case, I don't see your point. None of these fetuses were aborted for the purpose of creating vaccines, were they? Is it that you think they deserved a decent burial? Personally, if I had been one of those fetuses (if you se what I mean) I would rather have my remains go to something useful.

The following quotes from doctors in the field shed light on the circumstances surrounding the use of fetal tissue for medical research:

I cannot find a full text version of the paper the first quote is from, though I note it makes no reference to abortions. For all we know these fetuses could have been the result of spontaneous miscarriages or maternal deaths. I am skeptical of the claims about hearts still beating while the fetus was dissected. Mind you, I am not familiar with ethical standards 60 years ago, when this paper was published. Ethics have changed since then, thankfully.

The second quote I cannot find anywhere but rabid anti-abortion websites. I cannot confirm if it is genuine, what date it is from or even if it refers to human embryos. I did find Dr. Herranz, who, surprise surprise, is not a Professor of Histology and General Embryology, he works in the Department of Biomedical Humanities and writes about medical ethics. He appears to be anti-abortion himself.

The third quote, if genuine (I can't find it anywhere but anti-abortion sites and books), is about experiments carried out in Sweden 40 years ago, in the 70s (or perhaps earlier). I struggle to see the relevance to 21st century America.

AH: "There were at least 80 abortions involved in the work of developing cell lines, and then developing the controversial vaccines using the cell lines. The gestational age of the fetuses varied. "

As compared to the tens of thousands of stillbirths and even greater number of permanently disabled children due to Congenital Rubella Syndrome during the epidemic in the 1960:
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/Supplement_3/S164.full

Note: one of the known causes of autism is Congenital Rubella Syndrom

AH: "Gray, you are probably aware that some vaccines are not made in fetal cell lines, yes? Problem solved."

Not really. From the about link (which I know you will never read):

Over the next decade, accumulating evidence led to changes in the United States. First, the duck embryo and dog kidney vaccine strains caused significant joint reactions [24–27]. Second, reinfection on exposure to wild rubella virus was demonstrated frequently with all strains except the RA 27/3 vaccine [28–30]. Third, the good safety record of the RA 27/3 vaccine in Europe, plus the majority opinion of scientists, led the US Food and Drug Administration to license RA 27/3. Important pressure for this decision came from Dorothy Horstmann at Yale, who was convinced by her comparative studies of rubella vaccines [31], and by Maurice Hilleman at Merck, who sought a better rubella strain for measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine.

So, in short, you would rather have children suffer unreasonable side effects with the high possibility of not becoming immune to rubella because you hate children more than you love fetuses.

Note: one of the known causes of autism is Congenital Rubella Syndrom

Apparently at a fairly substantial rate, I recently read this paper on congenital rubella https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2002/177/11/greggs-congenital-rubella-pa…

"Others have followed up subjects with the congenital rubella syndrome. In 1991 Dr Louis Cooper described the 20 000 children born in the United States during the 1964–1965 epidemic.20 In their 20s, a third were leading normal lives, a third lived with their parents and had "non-competitive" jobs, and a third required institutional care for profound handicaps."

Now they may not have gotten that diagnosis back in the 60's but I suspect with modern diagnostic criteria most of the 1/3 that were in institutional care are on the spectrum and a fair percentage if not most of the 1/3 living with their parents have at least some aspect of being on the spectrum as well.

I know the scare trend graphs are out there but does anyone really think we are going to hit 2 of 3 kids who are vaccinated with the MMR will coming down with autism and all of them will test totally and completely above average in every way right up until the day they get that shot?

Now not every kid gets exposed to rubella in the womb even in the worst epidemics before vaccination, but of course the horrors those parents went through apparently don't matter like the terrors of the modern parent of the special snowflake.

of the aborted fetuses used, all died from being removed from their mother and dissected. None died from Rubella. As to whether it is preferable to kill children outright as opposed to potentially facing medical problems with Rubella, neither is good but I prefer the second. As to whether making life saving vaccines removes the moral culpability of dissecting living children, No.
Conservative estimates put deaths from abortion worldwide at over 1 billion. No other disease or natural disaster comes close.

To Helianthus #149:

“My main point is that a non-viable fetus may be human, but that it mostly is, is dying or dead.”

So, by your criteria
1)If you think another human is in the process of dying, you may kill him.
2)Our modern technology makes human beings more quickly than in the past, since now even babies born 3-4 months premature can be viable.

@ AH

There is zero point in discussing views of morality around this issue when
a. we don’t even agree on the facts surrounding the procurement and use of the fetal tissue
b. we don’t agree on objective standards of morality

I believe AH just told me (us?) he is willing to debate on morality questions provided I share his worldview.
Since the issue is a question of morality, that doesn't leave much to discuss about.
Well, if I shared your worldview, there wouldn't be much to discuss, either.

Right now, AH, I have some difficulties figuring out what's your beef, exactly.

You don't seem overly concerned about the abortions themselves, which I would have pegged as the main point of contention; how the fetuses were processed after the abortion seems to hold your attention.

Maybe your main issue is the cannibalistic feeling from using human parts.

From what Krebiozen or others have gathered about the origins of your citations, I have this feeling those quotations of you were randomly assembled and not all related to the issue under discussion, i.e. using human fetuses in vaccine development.
Isn't this a bit dishonest on your part?

Of the two of us, one is trying to check his moral compass, and it ain't you.

@AH

Do you have links to the original sources of those quotes in comment #76?

Todd W. I have the info from the NCBC quarterly, I'm not sure if it is available online currently. You could try googling the source info I listed and see what comes up.

@AH

Okay, so you have no way of verifying the validity of those quotes, nor examining their context?

Helianthus, what is the problem with my citations? Do you care to back up your conjecture with actual facts?

Searching for "NCBC quarterly 2006, A Brief History of Human Diploid Cell Strains Rene Leiva, M.D." only brings up random anti-abortion sites. What we need is a citation to the original paper.

Just provide the PubMed identification number.

A search of just the author's name brings up that the journal is the "The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly." Not an unbiased medical source.

@ SN

1)If you think another human is in the process of dying, you may kill him.

To save another human life, because the one dying is putting the other at a real risk of dying or of sequelae, too? Yes.
To do nothing is to kill them both.

Also, "think", as in "having good evidence in the form of medical teachings, previous experience and tell-tale clinical symptoms".
I'm not talking about using my gut feelings to decide who lives or dies.
And I never said it would be an easy decision. If it was an easy one, it wouldn't be a moral conundrum.

2)Our modern technology makes human beings more quickly than in the past, since now even babies born 3-4 months premature can be viable.

Yes. A challenge, but yes. So what?

I clearly stated I follow a "lesser of two evils" position.
Historical chronicles are pretty clear on this: abortions and infanticides have been widespread, in all societies, for the 2 last millenia if not more.
"Caesarian" is so named because Julius Caesar was born this way. If surgeons at that time could do this, you can bet they also knew how to kill a fetus.

Conservative estimates put deaths from abortion worldwide at over 1 billion.

And outlawing abortion wouldn't change much this sorry state of affairs. Dark-alley abortion offices and, for the upper-class, sympathetic family physicians were the norm before, they would become the norm again.
But I guess a benefit of outlawing abortion would be to make it easy to pretend it isn't happening. That was the norm, too.
If you really want to lower the number of abortions, you will need to work ahead of the moment a woman becomes pregnant.

To Krebiozen #151, 152:

“Here’s a photo of a 13-week fetus, to give some idea about what we are discussing. I don’t think “baby” is honestly an accurate word to describe it, do you?”

And here I thought it was wrong, especially in these politically-correct days, to judge someone’s worth by the way they look.
But that’s your view*.

*Which I find repulsive, just so you know.
.............
Me: “We quite sensibly deny children a future college education because they are non-college material NOW.”

You: “Couldn’t you extend that to terminating a pregnancy because a woman does not have the means to raise the child properly?”

No, I couldn’t. You’re saying something very different.
You’re saying ‘Show me the money, or I kill the kid.’

“I imagine you would prefer to force a woman to take her pregnancy to term, raise a child in horrible conditions, and then execute that child as an adult when s/he has committed an appalling crime.”

Then you have a wild and wrong imagination.

Todd W. Did you look for it or are you just whining? I copied directly from my personal files. I suppose you could contact the NCBC or I suppose you could go back to Hayflick and Moorhead's work for the first part. Then you could look up Plotkins work if you like. Context exists my friend, go get it.

Helianthus, abortions world wide have skyrocketed since legalization and modern availability of contraception. Your assumptions are incorrect.

Rubella doesn’t sound as dire as some of the talk here lead me to believe.
“Rubella, sometimes called German measles or three-day measles, is a contagious disease caused by a virus. The infection is USUALLY MILD with fever and rash.
Symptoms:
Rubella usually causes the following symptoms in children:

RASH that starts on the face and spreads to the rest of the body
LOW fever (less than 101 degrees)

These symptoms last 2 or 3 days.

Older children and adults may also have swollen glands and symptoms like a cold before the rash appears. Aching joints occur in many cases, especially among young women.

About HALF of the people who get rubella DO NOT HAVE SYMPTOMS.

Complications:

Birth defects if acquired by a pregnant woman: deafness, cataracts, heart defects, mental retardation, and liver and spleen damage (at least a 20% CHANCE of damage to the fetus if a woman is infected early in pregnancy)”

http://www.cdc.gov/rubella/about/index.html

@AH

No, not whining. I'm just asking you to provide proper citations for your claims. You are providing the quotes. It is your responsibility to ensure the accuracy and validity of those quotes.

@SeeNoevo

We're talking about the effects of rubella on a fetus (and the mother) when the mother is infected early in pregnancy. You are quoting the section that primarily discusses infection of children who have already been born and adults.

watch out, blood transfusions can cause adult on-set autism.

(sarcasm)

Todd, I provided the source for my quotes.

@SeeNeovo. 1 in 5 babies is a fairly high chance, and easily prevented. My husband is lucky that he's only blind; MIL didn't even realize it wasn't just a mild cold until they noticed the cataracts.

To gaist #180:

I’ll take a shot at what you asked AH:

“I) Do you think it is acceptable to kill another in self-defense?”

Yes, it can be.

“II) If yes, do you think terminating a pregnancy that is threatening the life of the mother is acceptable?”

It CAN be, under certain circumstances.
(In many cases the answer would be No. The threat to the mother is just that - a threat, a risk - not a certainty. Whereas, the end of abortion is a certainty. Abortion, as in the INTENDED destruction of the human life in the womb, is ALWAYS wrong.)
In certain cases that would be fatal to the mother (e.g. some ectopic pregnancies), the intended saving of the mother’s life may require UN-intended ending of the baby’s life. This “double effect” can be morally acceptable:

“When a choice will likely bring about both an intended desirable effect and also an unintended, undesirable effect, the principle of double effect can be applied to evaluate the morality of the choice. The chosen act is morally licit when (a) the action itself is good, (b) the intended effect is good, and (c) the unintended, evil effect is not greater in proportion to the good effect. For example, “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not” (Catechism, no. 2263, citing St. Thomas Aquinas).”
http://www.cuf.org/2004/04/ectopic-for-discussion-a-catholic-approach-t…

Again, why do you enjoy forcing mothers to watch their babies die?

Because it's only the trauma to the fetus that's important, right? Grown women can suck it up.

Helianthus @ #197 - See Noevo is evidently unfamiliar with the concept of triage.

Right, because making vaccines not using fetal tissue is the same thing as flying by force of will.

Vaccines aren't made using human tissue.

At least 80 fetuses were used…. See above#76
All of the fetuses were viable. What made them not viable was being removed from their mother and dissected, while still alive.

You're now conflating your two-thirds unsourced quotes with WI-38 and RA 27/3.

AH- And we found no evidence that the source you used is real.

By the way, you never answered my question: Would you allow pain and suffering caused by another rubella outbreak for the sake of someone who wouldn't be alive in the first place?

quote from Dr Norrby, Norrby, Erling “Listen to the Music: The Life of Hilary Koprowski (review)”, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine – Volume 44, Number 2, Spring 2001

Hayflick and Moorhead's paper is cited above,

A copy of the NCBC paper can be obtained at their website,

The quote from the Canadian Medical Journal is cited above at #155

The NCBC is not a scientific journal, but a religious one:
http://www.ncbcenter.org/

It is based on opinion, one in which concludes contraception is immoral. This is not a publication that we should use to formulate medical policy.

Searching for "Joan C. Thicke, Darline Duncan, William Wood, A. E. Franklin and A. J. Rhodes; Cultivation of Poliomyelitis Virus in Tissue Culture; Growth of the Lansing Strain in Human Embryonic Tissue, Canadian Journal of Medical Science, Vol. 30, pg 231-245" finds three links. Two of which is the "Children of God" site (English and Spanish), whose director is very anti-vaccine:
http://momswhovax.blogspot.com/2014/09/you-might-be-anti-vaccine-if-hid…

The other leads to this site, where it is listed as a paper from 1952:
http://www.healthheritageresearch.com/PolioVaccine-Pioneers.html

There is no way to check the content of that citation unless you have access to the archives in a medical school library, it is PMID: 14945014

There is a reason that AH is being coy and evasive about where he gets his quotes.

If a premature infant was surgically delivered would it be a baby or a fetus, and based on what criteria?

I'd say the same demosntrable criteria used to determine when what previously had been a human being has ceased to be a human beingis the logical criteria to use to determine when something that previously has not been a human being--a fetus-- has become one: -characteristic human neural activity. The cessation of such activity as a consequence of illness or traumatic injury allows the determination that someone has become brain dead and may ethically be removed from life support, so it's presence would indicate a fetus has developed sufficiently that it must be considered a human being rather than something with the potential to become a human being.

This characteristic neural activity is first observed around 23 to 24 weeks gestation.

NCBC is sited by the author of this post for one thing. Second, no one is talking about establishing policy. Third if you get a copy of the paper and read it you will note it is simply a historical review, with direct quotes from correspondence with some of the researchers and from numerous scientific papers.
The fact that you don't like the quotes or sources doesn't make them untrue. Furthermore every fact does not have to be cited in a scientific journal to be valid. You could get these sources, if you were so inclined.

AH: "NCBC is sited by the author of this post for one thing."

Where? Is it buried in the link, or are you confusing it with National Catholic Register? So what? Orac cites lots of things he does not agree with, especially when he is critical of it.

"Second, no one is talking about establishing policy"

Reading comprehension fail. The whole point of the demonization of Planned Parenthood is to restrict access to certain medical procedures due to religious doctrine, not science. Plus the other side effect is to also demonize the MMR and other vaccines due to religion, not science.

How is the NCBC not trying to dictate policy with articles like Coverage of Immoral Procedures under the Affordable Care Act. Essentially you all want to use your particular religion to affect the medical choices of others.

AH: "Furthermore every fact does not have to be cited in a scientific journal to be valid."

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your facts. And religious organizations that are actively campaigning to restrict medical choices due to their opinions is not scientific, nor should it be legal.

Click on the link in the post that says "concluding in a FAQ". Then scroll to the FAQ.

Are you telling me you are afraid to read the NCBC paper because it violates your deeply held beliefs in bigotry and abortion? Surely you are able to read a document and evaluate it?

Click on the link in the post that says “concluding in a FAQ”. Then scroll to the FAQ.

Are you telling me you are afraid to read the NCBC paper because it violates your deeply held beliefs in bigotry and abortion? Surely you are able to read a document and evaluate it?

My comment is awaiting moderation. Perhaps I'm over the limit of posts? Too much time spent already.

AH: You probably put too many links in your post. Now, tell me, would you have let children die for a non-viable fetus to be stillborn?

AH: “Second, no one is talking about establishing policy”

Who did David Daleiden make sure saw his illegally filmed video? Was it presented in a church, or to politicians?

im trying this once more..
NCBC is referenced in the part that says “concluding in a FAQ”.

Are you telling me you are afraid to read the NCBC paper because it violates your deeply held beliefs in bigotry and abortion? Surely you are able to read a document and evaluate it?

@AH

I think a pertinent aspect to Gray Falcon's question is this: the fetuses were aborted, which is, of course, sad and unfortunate, but the abortions had nothing to do with vaccine development. After they had already been aborted, tissue samples were taken for use in research.

So, if you were in the position to decide what to do back then would you:

a) Take the tissue samples and put them to good use to develop vaccines that have saved thousands of lives and improved overall quality of life; or,

b) Bury the aborted fetuses or otherwise rendered all of their tissue unavailable for any use other than worm food, thus leaving the only options of the time: vaccines with horrible adverse effects or death and suffering from the disease?

@AH

As to the quotes, the reason we (or at least I) ask for the original source is so that we can examine the quote in context. The words may still stand as they are in context, but the surrounding context may show that their is a different nuance or completely different takeaway from what was said or written.

A good example of this is Tim Minchin's song "Cont" or the climactic scene in Dr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog, in which Captain Hammer is reading a speech from notecards:

I hate the homeless...

ness problem.

The context of what was written on the following card changes the entire meaning of what he was saying. Had he not gone on to the next card, I think you can see how he would have offended quite a lot of people.

Todd, fetuses were dissected alive, they were not hanging around already dead, gee well, I guess we better use these already dead babies so we don't waste them...The researchers coordinated with the abortionists and were in fact looking for potential fetal abortion candidates. They were no where as removed as most people imagine

To put as fine a point as possible on things, if your argument is that tissues from aborted fetuses should not be used to further medical research, make a rational case.

If your argument is that because tissues from aborted fetuses are or have been used to further medical research access to abortion should be restricted, it's a non-starter, as restrictions can address the use of tissues from aborted fetuses without prohibiting abortions.

And if anyone is going to argue on the basis of this argument that Planned Parenthood be defunded they 'd better explain what they're propose we replace PP with, such that the affordable medical care they provide more than 3 million individuals each year, unrelated to abortion services, continues to be available. Abortion, after all, constitues at most only 3% of all services provided by PP.

"...on the asis of this video', not 'of this argument'.

AH, thank you for pointing out the link. It is confusing since the site is actually "cacatholic dot org."

AH: "Are you telling me you are afraid to read the NCBC paper because it violates your deeply held beliefs in bigotry and abortion?"

No, absolutely not. To no presume to guess my thinking, especially since you do not think the religious campaign against women's health is not aimed to changing national law.

What I am saying is that religious opinions should not be part of national health policy. That is a decision that should be bolstered by science. And even your vaulted NCBC says that the rubella vaccine is better than the alternative.

It is not "bigoted" to object to religion being used to restrict health choices like contraception. It is also not "bigotry" to point out the lies being perpetuated to make others comply to a religion that they are not a participant.

See Noevo: Rubella doesn’t sound as dire as some of the talk here lead me to believe.

That might be because you've no personal experience of anyone who suffered those consequences. At the time I met my wife she was working as a medical social worker and more than half of her caseload at her palce of employmennt ( a large residence for assisted living) were adults with multiple disabilities acquired as the result of rubella infection in utero, so I've a different (and I'd argue more informed) understanding of exactly how dire those consequences can be.

Todd, fetuses were dissected alive, they were not hanging around already dead, gee well.

And this would be a problem if it could be established that at the time of 'live dissection' those fetuses represented human beings. I know of no evidence is support of such a presumption, however. Care to take a whack at making that case?

So, AH, based on your response @277, you are 100% opposed to organ donation and would refuse it for yourself?

Because it's basically the same thing.
A fetus was aborted, but we can use the tissues to develop vaccines to save lives.
A person (adult or child) has died, but we can use their organs to let other people live.
No one goes around killing people for their organs, no one aborts a fetus for the tissues.

it is, quite literally, making the best of a bad situation.

JGC your comment has no basis in reality.

Justatech, if the babies are alive how are they dead?

AH, is it moral to lie? Do you think surreptitiously taking a video of someone and selectively editing it is honest?

AH: "JGC your comment has no basis in reality."

Oh, really? You are now denying that there was a rubella epidemic in the early 1960s that caused lots of stillbirths and disabled tens of thousands of children?

Chris the full videos are available online.

JGCs comment to me.

AH @234: I'm pretty sure that a fetus aborted in the 1960's is dead.

Also, did you know that a person can be dead and still have a beating heart?

Further, you did not answer my question: would you refuse an organ transplantation if you needed one because it came from a person who had just died?

Justatech see#177. Taking organs from living persons I would reject, yes, even if I was suffering.

Oh sorry I meant #155

AH@238:
OK, you seem to not know some important facts, so let's go over some things about organ donation.
You don't take organs out of a day old corpse. You try to get them out while the heart is still beating or on a heart-lung machine, but after the person is clinically dead. (In lay terms we call this "brain-death").

So the organs come out of a dead person who's heart is still beating or being induced to beat by a machine. The person is dead.

So, having clarified that, you would still refuse an organ transplant?

And your "citations" in 155? The only one with an actual citation is from 1952, and isn't available to read on PubMed. But some historical digging around shows me that in 1952, abortion in Canada was *only* legal to save the life of the mother. So in all of those instances, the choices were one death or two.

Which brings me back to my point about organ donation. The death is inevitable and immediate. the question is if any good can come of it.

And no matter how you feel about rubella being a "mild" disease, that was for a polio vaccine, and only the most out of touch would describe polio as "mild".

AH: "Chris the full videos are available online. "

So what? Is it moral to video someone without their knowledge and edit it dishonestly?

JustaTech: "And no matter how you feel about rubella being a “mild” disease, that was for a polio vaccine, and only the most out of touch would describe polio as “mild”."

Well, truthfully for about 99% of the cases it is mind. But there were so many cases in the 1950s that the 1% who became paralyzed was a huge number. Part of the reason is that most of the people who had polio did not know it, and spread it to others.

Just like the rubella epidemic ten years later, most of the people were not pregnant women, but they spread it around. Also, many of those women did actually get rubella from their older child or being around children. There was a debate in the USA if only girls should be vaccinated, but they decided to do both.

Which is a good thing as noted by Japan's recent rubella outbreak. It is mostly in young men who were vaccinated at a time when they only vaccinated girls. This has resulted in over forty cases of Congenital Rubella Syndrome:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%296…

I've already addressed the citations many times.

Im fairly certain the fetuses did not donate their organs /consent. It is unethical for a person responsible for killing a person to be the consenting party to donation. If you were a doctor and you intentionally cooperated with actions which led to death so that you could harvest organs that would be a very big problem.

Typo: "Well, truthfully for about 99% of the cases it is mild."

AH, how moral is it to video someone without their knowledge and then edit it dishonestly?

AH@ 243: You seem to have missed the part where the only possible way to get a legal, hospital abortion in Canada in 1952 was if the mother was going to die. And that the fetuses described in that paper were from a hospital.

So either the fetus died, or the mother *and* the fetus died. Can you not do that math?

Again: Organ or no organ?

First of all you are incorrect that the only way was if the mother was going to die. Many of the fetuses were from healthy mothers, some who were considered mentally unfit. The researchers in many cases wanted a healthy background for the medical history of mom and fetus. Second, not all of the fetuses were obtained in the same place, there were varying laws

From AH's comments, I have visions of a flying squad rounding up women and dragging them off to an abortion clinic, gleefully rubbing their hands together as they plan for pretty babies to dissect.

AH: First, you have no PROOF that these things actually happened. That's why we have been asking you for citations so we can read the quotes IN CONTEXT.

Secondly: are you aware that cardiac muscle can beat for quite some time after death? I know everyone has this "stopped heart" thing in mind. But that has almost nothing to do with muscle activity. And you can see a "heartbeat" of muscle for hours (try it with frog legs...they'll actually jump with a little stimulation. Freaked me out in high school biology class.)

However, as a nurse and a midwife, I have grave doubts that they were dissecting "babies with heartbeats".

To Helianthus #197:

“My main point is that a non-viable fetus may be human…”
“And I never said it would be an easy decision. If it was an easy one, it wouldn’t be a moral conundrum.”

So for you:
1)A viable fetus is a human being,
2)A non-viable fetus MAY be a human being,
3)But if you’re in doubt about 2), and have a bit of a conundrum, you’re OK with killing the life that infallible scientists say is non-viable.

“Historical chronicles are pretty clear on this: abortions and infanticides have been widespread, in all societies, for the 2 last millenia if not more.”

Possibly. But so what? So have murder, thievery, child-molestation, etc.

“But I guess a benefit of outlawing abortion would be to make it easy to pretend it isn’t happening.”

Well, we’ve outlawed murder, thievery, child-molestation, etc. We don’t pretend murder, thievery, child-molestation, etc. don’t still happen.
But I think the outlawing probably results in less murder, thievery, child-molestation, etc.

Lastly, it seems as though you are primarily concerned with protecting abortion rights only in certain circumstances, namely, where a) the pregnancy is considered to be endangering the mother’s life, and b) the fetus is considered “non-viable” (gestation of less than 5 months?).

Do I read you correctly?

If you want to read the papers in context you can do so. The quotes I have provided have been sourced. I understand you don't like it, but that is the proof. I didn't write these sources. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it invalid. If you have grave doubts, fine, I really don't care. You can in fact get the papers, read them, get the books read them. Nothing is stopping you.

AH,

Conservative estimates put deaths from abortion worldwide at over 1 billion. No other disease or natural disaster comes close.

Over one billion in total over the past several decades perhaps. About 40 million abortions are carried out per year globally. Since about 20% of known pregnancies spontaneously miscarry, and there are 140 million births each year, the natural spontaneous abortion rate must surely exceed the induced variety, and I see no reason why you would classify induced abortions as deaths but not spontaneous abortions. The vast majority of these abortions are in the developing world, all the more reason to improve health and education in those countries to reduce this. Also, in the US abortion rates have steadily decreased since the 80s, and show a trend towards earlier and earlier abortions.

What truly concerns me is that more than 20 million women undergo unsafe abortions every year. I don't see how anyone can equate the suffering and possible death of an adult woman after an unsafe abortion with terminating a 13 week pregnancy - more than 90% of abortions on the US are carried out earlier than this and more than half before six weeks gestation - I don't see how it is possible for a 13-week fetus to have any awareness or ability to suffer pain.

Of course as a secular humanist my opinions are based on me regarding suffering as undesirable. Some Christians are seemingly oblivious to human suffering and would rather see a woman die in agony than see a fetus the size of a tadpole aborted on the basis of some metaphysical, pre-scientific notions of souls and sin that I utterly reject.

I have my own biases around this subject. My mother nearly died after a botched abortion during WW2, when abortion was illegal in the UK. It was carried out by my father, who was a medical student at the time. I can only imagine what desperation led them to such measures. Ironically despite my father's efforts the pregnancy continued until they married, at which point my mother miscarried and the marriage continued, though never very happily (they divorced in the 60s). Also, as I have mentioned here before, a good friend committed suicide due to guilt after having an abortion.

It is unethical for a person responsible for killing a person to be the consenting party to donation.

A fetus is not a person, not in law, not in any sense of the word I am familiar with. Describing an early abortion as killing a person is simply a dishonest attempt to induce an emotional reaction.

Todd, fetuses were dissected alive

Your only basis for this statement is the Herranz and Donald quotes, which have no discernible bearing on WI-38 or MRC-5.

AH wrote:

Conservative estimates put deaths from abortion worldwide at over 1 billion. No other disease or natural disaster comes close.

Well, I suppose that depends on whether you consider spontaneous abortion a "natural disaster." A human conceptus has only about a one-in-three chance of making it through to birth, so, I suppose, those who believe a fertilized egg is a little human should understand that two-thirds of little humans die before birth in a "natural disaster" that dwarfs elective abortion.

Some Christians are seemingly oblivious to human suffering and would rather see a woman die in agony than see a fetus the size of a tadpole aborted on the basis of some metaphysical, pre-scientific notions of souls and sin that I utterly reject.

Not only do I reject it, it doesn't make any sense anyway; if the immortal soul is real and there's a heaven and hell and all that, wouldn't dead babies (i.e., aborted fetuses) go straight to heaven anyway, now that limbo doesn't exist anymore? (Yeah, the RCC got rid of it; how one eliminates a supernatural realm, I can't tell you.) Seems an easier lot than suffering through however many years in this mortal realm before you get to go hang out with Jesus for eternity or whatever.

To JustaTech #232 (et al):

“No one goes around killing people for their organs, no one aborts a fetus for the tissues.”

Really?

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-footage/

Time 3:50:
Planned Parenthood: “I know I’ve seen livers, I’ve seen stomachs, I’ve seen plenty of neural tissue. Usually you can see the whole brain usually comes out.”

Time 4:08:
“… we’d have to do a little bit of training, with the providers or something, to make sure they didn’t crush, or…”

7:52:
“Because if you have someone in an anti state that’s going to be doing this for you, they’re probably going to get caught.”

8:49:
Buyer: [Cracking noise.] “What was that crack, the little bits of the skull?”
PP: “Mhmm. I just want to see one leg. Here’s a foot. It’s a baby.”
Buyer: “Is that the heart?”
PP: “I think so. Here’s the heart.”

10:35:
PP: “Here’s some organs for you, they’re all attached. Here’s a stomach, kidney, heart… And another boy!”

OK. Now I know that video is all crap. I hadn't watched it because PP does legally have the right, with the patient's permission, to donate speciments for science. And maybe the woman talking was a bit crude but she was being played for that role.

HOWEVER...

PP doesn't do terminations generally beyond 12 weeks. You won't see the kind of stuff mentioned. It's nearly impossible to tell the difference between male and female at that point. There is no calcification of the bones. I've SEEN women miscarry at 12, 13, 14 weeks. I've poked through the specimens to try to identify if everything was expelled or if a D&C was needed to complete the process. This is bull.

Krebozian (#250)


I don’t see how it is possible for a 13-week fetus to have any awareness or ability to suffer pain.

Why would that be a consideration anyway? Say you don’t want to risk the fetus feeling pain and so force the pregnant person (nevermind their pain) to go through with the birth. Well, however good one’s life, actually being born is a guarantee of experiencing far, far more pain than it could ever be possible to cause during an abortion. If the fetus’ pain is such a serious concern, then we should be looking to abort every last one of them before the world can have its way with them.

@AH #238

"Taking organs from living persons I would reject, yes, even if I was suffering."

Including ones where the living donor survives? What if you could donate some of your liver or a kidney to save a life, would you refuse because any kind of organ donation is a sin not matter what if the donor is living? What about tissue donations such as a bone marrow transplant where the living donor may experience a fair amount of pain, but doesn't lose anything other than a bit of tissue?

Is it different if the living donor can continue to live or is your no not at all never completely absolute?

KayMarie, you're right, I should have been more specific. There is no moral problem with donations that do not compromise the health or result in the death of the donors. Only in cases where organs were taken from living persons and that resulted in death or compromised their health would I reject or where their was a lack of consent or other ethical problem. But there are of course licit conditions.

We can & must debate about
who we think we may kill, & for whom,
when, where, & why,
but let's all keep in mind the main issue:
that fetuses _may_ be already sentient.
If we keep that main point in mind,
we'll surely at least reduce all our killing.

For some reason, a scene from the movie “The Hustler” came to my mind tonight while looking at all this “stuff”, to use an MI Dawn term.

Sarah Packard: “Doesn't all of this come through to you, Eddie? Doesn't any of this mean anything to you? That man, this place, the people. They wear masks, Eddie. And underneath the masks they're perverted, twisted, crippled.”

"Fast" Eddie Felson: “Shut up.”

Sarah Packard: “Don't wear a mask, Eddie. You don't have to. That's Turk, Eddie, the man who broke your thumbs. Only he's not going to break your thumbs. He'll break your heart, your guts. And for the same reason -- 'cause he hates you, 'cause of what you are. 'Cause of what you have and he hasn't.”

Later, shortly before her death, Sarah writes those same words on the hotel bathroom mirror:
PERVERTED, TWISTED, CRIPPLED.

Anyway, those words came into my head tonight.

It’s a great movie.

Later, shortly before her death, Sarah writes those same words on the hotel bathroom mirror:
PERVERTED, TWISTED, CRIPPLED.

Mirrors, SN: they're your friends.

JP,

Not only do I reject it, it doesn’t make any sense anyway; if the immortal soul is real and there’s a heaven and hell and all that, wouldn’t dead babies (i.e., aborted fetuses) go straight to heaven anyway, now that limbo doesn’t exist anymore?

That is what was believed to happen to them before the concept of limbo was invented. Perhaps SN could clarify it for us.

An Irish Catholic friend of mine (not the one who killed herself) was taught that baptized souls are what that matter, not suffering, that God literally counts souls to be sure he is ahead of the Muslims and the Protestants in the great race toward Judgement Day.

Presumably that's why Mother Teresa was more concerned with the spiritual welfare of the children she cared for than their physical well-being.

I know that SN and AH (who I assume is a Christian) have the best interests of women and children at heart, but I think they are making a terrible mistake, allowing awful suffering for an imaginary, metaphysical, greater good. .

@SN

you’re OK with killing the life that infallible scientists say is non-viable.

"infaillible scientists" have designed the computer you are using right now.
You may want to stop using it before it explodes. One never knows.

One of my points is that you do moral decisions using the tools you have. "Tools" in the large sense, to include people with some expertise in the appropriate fields.
Another good motto I read somewhere is that an amateur should be wary of second-guessing the expert in the line of fire. He may sometimes have a point, but more often than not he will be missing some context.
So I will trust a gynecologist over some stranger on the internet to tell me if a fetus has some chance to live. If you have a better solution, I'm all ears.

Lastly, it seems as though you are primarily concerned with protecting abortion rights only in certain circumstances, namely, where a) the pregnancy is considered to be endangering the mother’s life, and b) the fetus is considered “non-viable” (gestation of less than 5 months?).

Do I read you correctly?

That would be my starting point.

These are dark situations I feel where abortion is the moral thing to do, because the fetus is never going to be a human being (e.g. ectopic pregnancies - the egg is not going to develop properly) or is going to die shortly (internal bleeding and oxygen deprivation following placenta abruption), and there is nothing you (currently) can do to fix it.

There are less dark, less clear-cut situations, like rubella infection, or more generally any infection of the amniotic chamber, where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, and the life/correct development of the baby has bad odds. You - the parents, the medical staff and whoever who feels his opinion may count - may hope things will resolve themselves in a positive way, but if you are unlucky, you lose both the mother and the child. You can only make "conjectures", to use someone else favorite word, but based on past experiences, it looks dire.
I tend heavily into caution: protecting the life that is - the mother - over the life that could be - the baby. If I am wrong this way, I only killed one person. If I go the other way and I am wrong, I killed two persons.
Yeah, because I don't follow the trite "if I don't get involved, I don't have any responsibility in the outcome". To do nothing is to do something.

These shades of grey go lighter, all the way to purely elective abortions. The lighter we go, the less sure I am of my moral position.

But if we don't agree on what I see as the clear-cut cases, there is no point grappling about the more murky ones.

Which brings me to another angle of my position: what's effective at reducing the number of abortions.

Well, we’ve outlawed murder, thievery, child-molestation, etc. We don’t pretend murder, thievery, child-molestation, etc. don’t still happen.
But I think the outlawing probably results in less murder, thievery, child-molestation, etc.

True enough (although, some religious leaders became recently famous for denying that child-molestation happened among their ranks. But I digress).

But:
As I said, we did pretend abortions weren't happening, or only to the other people.
My mom told me about the concierge at the entrance of her building who was providing her services as a "faiseuse d'ange" (angel maker), back in the 60's. Everybody knew, but everybody pretended not to.

In social terms, abortion is not happening like crimes done out of spite or lack of self-control, on the spur of the moment. Well, I'm not talking about the self-inflicted ones.
Illegal abortion is a service proposed by people to other people. In this regard, its dynamics are more akin to gambling or prohibited substances than wanton murder.
And in all developed countries, illegal gambling or tobacco/alcohol/... consumption have not been curtailed until they have been made legal, and heavily regulated.
I also have this little feeling that the true availability of different contraception methods, for women and for men, is a bigger factor in reducing the demand for abortion than whatever outlawing you can do. In this respect, I think the current attack on Planned Parenthood, if successful, will only results in more abortions, not less.
Just saying.

Mirrors, SN: they’re your friends.
Ha. JP's next drink is on me/

a scene from the movie “The Hustler” came to my mind tonight
Indeed? Does this happen a lot? Why do you think this is?

Krebiozen, JP, re beliefs: God created mankind for eternal life. Death, disease, suffering entered the world through the plan of Satan to destroy mankind because he hatred God ( hurting Gods children was The way to torture God). This is what satan wants, confusion death, deception. God, being greater than Satan and always being the author of life and love, becomes the very victim Satan is going after and in becoming man offers himself in place of his children. Satan falls for this, because he never sees past his own hatred, and he kills the spotless lamb, thereby the sins of all humanity deceived as they were by the evil one are paid, and so no longer must man be captive to satan or eternal death. Man has free will and by joining himself to Christ may return to the loving Father for the eternal life he was created for.

AHH...now I see why AH and I will never agree. As an agnostic/atheist, I want proof that this divine being actually exists, ever existed, and isn't the megalomaniac depicted in (select your version of your holy book). So far, I haven't seen any actual proof.

And if (he/she/it) does exist, they are lousy clairvoyants. So many of the "prophesies" have either not come true or have been proven false.

Oh, and I don't believe in Satan, either.

And #264 shows exactly why there is absolutely no point in continuing any attempts at reasonable discussion with AH: goddidit...'cept for when satandidit...

Assuming that is an accurate representation of their views rather than satire.

You are free to believe or reject. That's what free will is.
Proclaiming that there can be no reasonable discussion with people who express religious views is bigotry.

AH- Your religious views are utterly reprehensible. Your refuse to answer a simple question about the ethics of your stance, unaware that does nothing to help you out.

I can't help but notice some contradictory stuff here:

Death, disease, suffering entered the world through the plan of Satan to destroy mankind because he hatred God

and

God, being greater than Satan and always being the author of life and love

I seem to recall something in the Bible about how Satan was not able to bring evil into Job's life without God's okay.

But I'm getting off topic. Back to AH and rubella.

As someone else pointed out, your quote has to do with polio vaccine, and we're not even certain of the specifics of the situation. You are speculating about what happened. Now, about rubella vaccine. The abortions were already performed for reasons not at all connected with developing the vaccine. You didn't answer the questions I asked before, so I'll copy them here:

If you were in the position to decide what to do back then would you:

a) Take the tissue samples and put them to good use to develop vaccines that have saved thousands of lives and improved overall quality of life; or,

b) Bury the aborted fetuses or otherwise rendered all of their tissue unavailable for any use other than worm food, thus leaving the only options of the time: vaccines with horrible adverse effects or death and suffering from the disease?

According to Hebrew understanding of the Bible, Satan only exists as God's subordinate. The word "Satan" can be translated as "prosecutor". By this understanding, death, disease, and suffering entered the world by God's will for God's purposes. To suggest Satan has power of his own is idolatrous.

Satan has free will. God does not force him to be loving. When it says God allowed it, it refers to the fact that God doesn't strong arm Satan or anyone else into chosing Gods will. That isn't contradictory. The fact that you and a whole lot of other people don't understand something doesn't make it contradictory or dumb.
I've already explained the quotes, if you don't draw the connection I'm making, fine. I'm not obliged to answer the same objections over and over. It's clear you are not wanting to consider my point. So be it. I've already answered your questions, you just don't like my answers.

So what you're saying is that you would approve of another rubella outbreak, and all the death and suffering it entails?

Gray, you have zero competence in this area. Nice try though.

AH: Enough sidestepping. Which is better: To harvest cells from a few non-viable fetuses, or let people die and suffer from rubella? We need an answer.

Satan has free will. God does not force him to be loving. When it says God allowed it, it refers to the fact that God doesn’t strong arm Satan or anyone else into chosing Gods will.

Apologies, again, for the tangent, but what you are saying here, essentially, is that death, disease and suffering only exist in the world because God allows it. So the ultimate responsibility lies with God.

Now, back to the rubella vaccine. Would you care to answer, just very simply, which option you would choose had you been the one calling the shots. Just answer "a" or "b". Thanks!

Todd I don't think you are even trying to think. Is love that is forced love? No. Love has to be freely chosen in order for it to be authentically love. God allows free will because this is what is required in order for love to be made manifest. The fact that satan or anyone rejects God and chooses evil is squarely on the individual.

Which is it, AH? Do you think that the suffering caused by another rubella outbreak would be more right and moral than the dissection of a stillborn fetus?

AH,

Krebiozen, JP, re beliefs: God created mankind for eternal life. Death, disease, suffering entered the world [...]

That's what you believe, though why anyone would believe such a bizarre scenario beats me. I don't share those beliefs, obviously, but I respect your right to hold them.

I noticed that you wrote earlier:

There is no moral problem with donations that do not compromise the health or result in the death of the donors.

It was your absolute language that caught my attention. What I think you meant was, "I have no moral problem...". There are several billion of us on this planet and we do not all agree about morals. I have a problem with people who make absolute statements about morality and try to impose those beliefs on those who don't share them. This planet is too small for that kind of attitude, unless we carve the planet up into some kind of mega-cantons.

I would like to see abortions carried out as little as possible, not because I believe they are immoral, or sinful, but because it is unpleasant for the woman undergoing it, and also partly because abortions clearly cause distress to some with religious objections, such as yourself. I would like to accomplish this by providing effective contraception, by educating people and by empowering women to take charge of their own fertility and bodies. You, presumably, would like to accomplish this by scaring people into abstinence or into having unwanted children through threats of eternal torture after death, or by making them look at an ultrasound of their fetus (which has little effect on women's decisions), which I can't help finding despicable.

I disagree with your beliefs but I don't want to see you suffer either, nor would I want to see anyone who was opposed to abortion being forced to undergo, carry out or witness one. I find it sad that you and your ilk are not willing to offer me the same respect, and that you do your best to impose your beliefs on others who do not hold them.

Proclaiming that there can be no reasonable discussion with people who express religious views is bigotry.

How can you discuss something rationally with someone who has reached their views through a route other than reason, especially when they claim that Truth comes from some kind of infallible Holy Writ that cannot be challenged? Isn't that is the very opposite of reasonable.

The fact that satan or anyone rejects God and chooses evil is squarely on the individual.

What about those who reject God and evil? Can a secular humanist be good?

Todd I don’t think you are even trying to think. Is love that is forced love? No. Love has to be freely chosen in order for it to be authentically love. God allows free will because this is what is required in order for love to be made manifest. The fact that satan or anyone rejects God and chooses evil is squarely on the individual.

I did not say anything about forcing love or removing free will. I was simply pointing out that, according to your own statements, death, disease, and suffering are only in the world because God allows it. So their existence is His responsibility, at least according to what you have stated.

But let's drop the theological talk and get back on topic. Would you choose A or B?

What is irrational in what I have said? Prove it!

You are under no obligation to believe as I do, however, you fail to see that even your view tries to impose on others.

Todd, Rejection of God is how death, disease, suffering are made manifest.

AH @ 233

Then what evidence indicates that at all stages following conception the developing organism is a human being, rather than a human zygote, embryo or fetus?

let's start at the beginning: following fertilization but prior to the first round of cell division we're talking about something that's unicellular, possess no differentiated tissues, is insensate beyond the most basic chemical/receptor interactions common to all cells, exhibits no sentience or any higher neural functions because--obviously--it possesses no neural structures of any kind.

By what rational argument must this be considered to sahre exact identity with a day-0ld, week-old, year-old, twenty year-old...etc., human male or female?

And please note that any argument from portential ("If it isn't aborted it will eventually become a human being") argue against your position, as logically at any time the statement "This has the potential to become a human being" is found true the statement "This is already a human beiing" must be found false.

AH, why are you avoiding our question? Would you have preferred that the vaccine not have been developed, and all the suffering said decision would entail?

It is unethical for a person responsible for killing a person to be the consenting party to donation.

And again: your evidence that at the time the abortions are legally permissible and where tissues may be harvested, the fetus is must be considered to represent a person such that the fetus' consent would be necessary would be...what, exactly?

Be specific.

Job 38:4-7New International Version (NIV)

4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?

Once you can answer those questions, AH, I'll accept your theological points, and no sooner.

@AH

Would you choose A or B? It is a pretty simply answer to give.

Only in cases where organs were taken from living persons and that resulted in death or compromised their health would I reject or where their was a lack of consent or other ethical problem.

In other words, you only object to something that never happens? Thanks for clearing that up.

but let’s all keep in mind the main issue:
that fetuses _may_ be already sentient

What evidence indicates that fetuses may be already sentient at any time prior to 23-24 weeks gestation ( the earliest time at which characteristic human brainwaves patterns may be detected)? Be specific.

Is love that is forced love?

How is "Love me or burn in hell for all eternity!" not a use of force?

Todd, Rejection of God is how death, disease, suffering are made manifest

Demonstrably false, AH: death and disease occurred long before human beings capable of embracing or rejecting a putative god existed on this planet.

Todd reread the comments I've made. I already answered. And I've already said that I already answered.

JGC, reality and a dictionary. Human being: a person

Gray you are under no obligation to accept my theological points.

And I think I'm done covering things I've already covered. Time to enjoy the day. Peace

So, AH, why are you here?

Rejection of God is how death, disease, suffering are made manifest

Job didn't reject god, yet he suffered and eventually died. And did Job's children reject God before they died in a freak wind storm? What about Job's servants who were chopped up by Chaldeans or burned to death by the fire of God?

Death, disease, and suffering happen to pretty much all living things, assuming they can actually suffer. Accepting or rejecting God has nothing to do with that.

@AH

Actually, you haven't answered the question. You've danced around the answer, plenty, but no straight answer. Instead, you've focused on a quote about the polio vaccine (remember, we are asking about the rubella vaccine). You have noted how you would refuse any tissues/organs from a living donor (which does not bear on the question I asked you). Again, with the development of the rubella vaccine, the fetus had already been aborted for reasons other than vaccine development. At that point, there were two options:

a) Take the tissue samples and put them to good use to develop vaccines that have saved thousands of lives and improved overall quality of life; or,

b) Bury the aborted fetuses or otherwise rendered all of their tissue unavailable for any use other than worm food, thus leaving the only options of the time: vaccines with horrible adverse effects or death and suffering from the disease?

Given your snarky response at #227, am I correct in concluding that you would choose option B? A clear yes/no reply is all that is needed.

For some reason, a scene from the movie “The Hustler” came to my mind tonight while looking at all this “stuff”

Oh, the irony.

KayMarie @ 187

I thought it was generally accepted by everyone that congenital rubella was a major cause of autism.Way too many links and studies to post here as you can see.

The LBRB article citing where Lyn Redwood links congenital rubella to mercury is especially worth a read.

JGC, reality and a dictionary. Human being: a person

Yes--that was my question. What evidence demonstrates that what evidence indicates that at all stages following conception the developing organism is a human being (i.e., a person), rather than a human zygote, embryo or fetus?

Consider again the period following conception but before the first cycle of cell division--would you argue that at that stage the fertilized cell must be considered to be a person, rather than a zygote? If so, on what evidence?

JGC @ 241
"That might be because you’ve no personal experience of anyone who suffered those consequences. At the time I met my wife she was working as a medical social worker and more than half of her caseload at her palce of employmennt ( a large residence for assisted living) were adults with multiple disabilities acquired as the result of rubella infection in utero, so I’ve a different (and I’d argue more informed) understanding of exactly how dire those consequences can be."

AH @ 233

JGC your comment has no basis in reality.
Maybe you are the one who has no basis in reality.Here are just two of the more recent studies that back up what JGC says.
http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/12/29/maternal-infections-linked-to-i…

http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news/2014/large-study-links-maternal-…

AH: "Satan has free will. God does not force him to be loving."

I am sorry, but you cannot base public policy, federal funding, or access to medical care on fictional entities. You need to use real science, math and reasoning. Not belief in invisible sky fairies.

Especially when your belief in these fictional characters makes you feel it is okay to lie. You never did answer my questions on the morality secretly recording someone and editing the video dishonestly.

AH @ 282

Todd, Rejection of God is how death, disease, suffering are made manifest.

As an atheist myself,there are two question I have always asked hardcore believers.I have yet to get a logical answer,that makes any real sense.

How do you square this belief with children who are born with very serious birth defects and genetic disorders? Most religious doctrine,especially Judeo-Christian doctrine was formed centuries before people knew anything about modern medicine,be it genetics,and congenital disorders,or infectious diseases.

What of the pain and suffering endured by sick and injured animals?Has a dog who has contracted parvovirus or a rhinoceros dying of fungal pneumonia rejected God?

Please answer in a logical manner.

AH (or See Noevo)

Your thoughts on this passage?
“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. "
- Exodus 21:22-25

JGC @ 289

Interesting article about when brain waves are first detected.

Even pro-lifers are not sure if a fetus has enough brain activity to feel pain in the first trimester.

@gaist

I imagine they'll argue that "no harm" means the child was simply born prematurely but survived.

Here, however, is another interesting passage: Hosea 13. Then there is Numbers 5 which talks about priests inducing abortions in women who have been accused of cheating on their husbands.

I'd addressed this back in 2012, in another RI post (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/13/a-one-trick-pony-does-his-…)

From that post:

The earliest neural activity that can be associated with brain function has been measured was at 12 weeks of development. It however displays none of the characterisitics of actual brainwaves seen on a normal EEG. R. M. Bergstrom stimulated the fetal brain stem directly and recorded random bursts of electrical activity, which looked exactly like the bursts produced by fetal leg muscles when they were so stimulated.

At 17 weeks gestation Bergstrom reports finding “primitive wave patterns of irregular frequency or intermittent complexes from the oral portion of the brain stem and from the hippocampus” in the midbrain, measured by EEG. None of the fetuses Bergstrom studied, however, displayed “brain waves” or other kind of signal from the cerebral cortex as late as 150 days post-fertilization ( the oldest fetuses studied). [Bergstrom RM. Development of EEG and unit electrical activity of the brain during ontogeny. In: Jilke LJ, Stanislav T, eds. Ontogenesis of the brain. Praha, Czech: University of Karlova Press, 1968:61-71.]

When we do begin to see actual brainwaves originating from the cortex–sustained, bilaterally synchronous waves, characterisitic sleep spindles, etc., the kind of brainwaves whose absence is prima facie evidence that a victim suffering traumatic injury is brain-dead–is around 26 weeks gestation.

“Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns…First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.” [“Pain and Its Efffects in the Human Neonate and Fetus” Anand et al, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 317, Number 21: Pages 1321-1329, 19 November 1987]

I see.
It’s like the unemployed drug addict who spends $1000/month on crack.
In a “good” month he earns $1000/month from under-the-table odd jobs and drug sales.
But he gets $1000/month from his despairing parents and friends, on the grounds that he NOT use ANY of it for drugs.
And he agrees! He promises!

Except that Planned Parenthood does not receive its federal funding in a lump sum, but rather in the form of reimbursement for covered procedures (which do not include abortion) and is subject to routine audits, yes!

Or, in other words: No. It's not like that at all. No public dollars received by Planned Parenthood are used to pay for abortion.

To say otherwise is untruthful.

While this involves animal research,it does involve (a type) of autism.All I have to say is science is awesome!

To Helianthus:

“My main point is that a non-viable fetus may be human…”

But although you think it MAY be human, you’re OK with aborting it, despite your uncertainty.

“These shades of grey go lighter, all the way to purely elective abortions. The lighter we go, the less sure I am of my moral position. But if we don’t agree on what I see as the clear-cut cases, there is no point grappling about the more murky ones.”

And over the last few decades, while you’ve been trying to get clear on this, 50 million “may be” human beings have been aborted.

You’re probably right on at least one thing: There in no point in me grappling on this with a person like you.

To Krebiozen #279:

“How can you discuss something rationally with someone who has reached their views through a route other than reason, especially when they claim that Truth comes from some kind of infallible Holy Writ that cannot be challenged? Isn’t that is the very opposite of reasonable.”

Maybe you should ask an atheist who’s anti-abortion, like Nat Hentoff.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/06/nat-hentoffs-sol…

There in no point in me grappling on this with a person like you.

Just by the by, your assignment of mutual culpability to Yishai Schlissel's most recent stabbing victims was a fantastically minimalist self-portrait.

This article and many of the comments here revolve around vaccines developed from the bodies of aborted babies.
Does anybody out there know how many vaccines were developed from the bodies of people who were born?

To JGC:

What do you, as a self-described observant Jew, believe about an afterlife?

What if Dr. Josef Mengele had developed some wondrously efficacious vaccines from the bodies of the various prisoners before they were gassed at Auschwitz?

Do you think such vaccines would be as popular as the ones described above?

Does anybody out there know how many vaccines were developed from the bodies of people who were born?

You're awfully fυcking lazy on top of being grotesquely evasive, now aren't you?

Measles and mumps, obviously. You can do the rest of your "assignment" on your own. Don't forget to tally the entire schedule.

This article and many of the comments here revolve around vaccines developed from the bodies of aborted babies.

The vaccines in question were not developed from the bodies of aborted babies.

They are grown in human cell strains. The cell cell strains were obtained from fetus tissue 50 years ago.

@ SN

Way to skip all my arguments and fall back to your position.

So, whenever there is a medical problem in a pregnancy, we should do nothing and let everybody suffer, including the baby. Glad we cleared your position.
Would you like to send a thank you note to the Irish doctors who let Savita Halappanavar die?

Way also to slam the door on the face of someone who you may have, maybe, dragged a bit more into your camp. We are exactly back at my post #46.

I notice you completely avoided my attempt to steer the discussion into practical solutions.
It's easier to to be here, sitting on your high horse and pretending to have the moral high ground, than to get in the trenches and actually help the ones having to do moral decisions.

If people go back to the coat hanger, I guess you would happily sneer at their barbarism and wash your hands of it, à la Ponce Pilate.

It’s easier to to be here, sitting on your high horse

That's going a bit far; if S.N. were Lady Godiva, he'd have been too busy staring at himself in the mirror to ever make a fuss in the first place.

@SN

What if Dr. Josef Mengele had developed some wondrously efficacious vaccines from the bodies of the various prisoners before they were gassed at Auschwitz?

Aaand the Godwin point.

But it's funny you should ask.

For the lurkers interested in real-world moral issues:

There was a discussion on, I believe, Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" site about ethics. One retired engineer from the NASA chimed in and explained how the Nazis did realize tests on the acceleration effects on the human body - basically, throwing Jewish prisoners down, alive, into a mine shaft.
So the NASA found itself in this moral quandary:
- do they use the results of the Nazi experiments - which, for all they know, were perfectly useful results, ethics questions aside;
- or do they round up a herd of goat and repeat the experiment, with the caveat that, since goats are not humans, the results will not be as good?
They finally went with the nazis' results. In addition to the results being more accurate - and thus, less likely to result in the NASA killing the people they will be sending to space, they may have felt that discarding these previous results would have been like killing the prisoners a second time.

Now waiting for SN to tell us he would have started a career in goat sacrifices.
Bonus question: if such research on vaccines has been done by Mengele (setting aside the fact that this guy was too biased to conduct good research), would SN discard these findings and accept that the research was repeated on fetuses?

Bonus question: if such research on vaccines has been done by Mengele (setting aside the fact that this guy was too biased to conduct good research), would SN discard these findings and accept that the research was repeated on fetuses?

A more direct approach might be to try to get him to reconcile remarks such as this* with Pius XII's first encyclical:

I wish we could at least impeach the white half of him.

ObImage.

* He's really fond of the mulatto shіt. So much for sexless serenity.

There was a discussion on, I believe, Ben Goldacre’s “Bad Science” site about ethics. One retired engineer from the NASA chimed in and explained how the Nazis did realize tests on the acceleration effects on the human body – basically, throwing Jewish prisoners down, alive, into a mine shaft.

R.D. Laing had a similar anecdote from his early days at med school, when his class were watching films of joint movement in live human subjects, and he discovered that the films had been made in death camps, and could not have been made anywhere else, since the required intensity of of X-ray exposure for filming was not compatible with long-term survival. He felt guilty about watching the footage.
Mainly, though, he was concerned that no-one else seemed to feel guilty... and since he was going to watch the footage anyway, the whole story was more about advertising how much more moral and sensitive he was. Laing was such an emo kid.

See Noevo,

“How can you discuss something rationally with someone who has reached their views through a route other than reason, especially when they claim that Truth comes from some kind of infallible Holy Writ that cannot be challenged? Isn’t that is the very opposite of reasonable.”
Maybe you should ask an atheist who’s anti-abortion, like Nat Hentoff.

That article states (quoting Mark Judge):

“A famous liberal who was a staple at the Village Voice and who had a column in the Washington Post , in the 1980’s Hentoff actually let himself be swayed by evidence about abortion.”
“It happened when Hentoff was reporting on the case of Baby Jane Doe, a Long Island infant born with spina bifida and hydrocephalus, which is excess fluid in the cranium. With surgery, spina bifida babies can grow up to be productive adults. Yet Baby Jane’s parents, on their doctor’s advice, had refused both surgery to close her spine and a shunt to drain the fluid from her brain. In resisting the federal government’s attempt to enforce treatment, the parents pleaded privacy.”

So Hentoff's objection to abortion was triggered by an emotional reaction to some parents of a severely disabled child refusing life-saving treatment for that child, which of course is exactly the same as a six-week abortion. How is that rational?

To Krebiozen #321:

“So Hentoff’s objection to abortion was triggered by an emotional reaction to some parents of a severely disabled child refusing life-saving treatment for that child, which of course is exactly the same as a six-week abortion. How is that rational?”

Gee, I’m surprised you didn’t read a little more from that very short article.
It goes on to say things such as

“As Hentoff told the Washington Times in a 1989 profile , his ‘curiosity was not so much the case itself but the press coverage.’ Everyone on the media was echoing the same talking points about ‘women’s rights’ and ‘privacy.’ “Whenever I see that kind of story, where everybody agrees, I know there’s something wrong,’ Hentoff told the Times…

“He came across the published reports of experiments in what doctors at Yale-New Haven Hospital called ‘early death as a management option’ for infants ‘considered to have little or no hope of achieving meaningful ‘humanhood.’
He talked with handicapped people who could have been killed by abortion.”

“When Hentoff’s pro-choice friends heard about his new pro-life convictions (which, to them, were heresies), they were aghast, but he didn’t back down: “Here were liberals, decent people, fully convinced themselves that they were for individual rights and liberties but willing to send into eternity these infants because they were imperfect, inconvenient, costly. I saw the same attitude on the part of the same kinds of people toward abortion, and I thought it was pretty horrifying.”

“… he is hardly a political or social conservative. His courage and independence on the issue of life deserves note.

“Hentoff’s transformation is recounted in The Debate Since Roe: Making the Case Against Abortion 1975-2010 , a powerful collection of essays from the Human Life Review , which has received excellent reviews and which other reporters could learn a great deal from.”

See Noevo and AH:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/…

Read this article and then think about whether you want to ccontinue yammering on about how morally superior you are.

“… he is hardly a political or social conservative. His courage and independence on the issue of life deserves note.

He's a Rand Paul supporter who's a Cato Institute fellow and frequent contributor to the Washington Times and woldnetdaily.

So it's not just that he's hardly a liberal either. He's not a man of the left in any way, shape, or form. And he hasn't been for decades. He's basically a libertarian/neo-con with a few token idiosyncrasies.

I'm actually not sure how he's not a social conservative, tbh.

here was a discussion on, I believe, Ben Goldacre’s “Bad Science” site about ethics. One retired engineer from the NASA chimed in and explained how the Nazis did realize tests on the acceleration effects on the human body – basically, throwing Jewish prisoners down, alive, into a mine shaft.
So the NASA found itself in this moral quandary:
– do they use the results of the Nazi experiments – which, for all they know, were perfectly useful results, ethics questions aside;
– or do they round up a herd of goat and repeat the experiment, with the caveat that, since goats are not humans, the results will not be as good?
They finally went with the nazis’ results. In addition to the results being more accurate – and thus, less likely to result in the NASA killing the people they will be sending to space, they may have felt that discarding these previous results would have been like killing the prisoners a second time.

Ahem.

Considering that NASA was not only already using rocket technology developed by the Nazis using slave labor that killed (and, in fact, was designed to exterminate) tens of thousands of people but also employing the Nazis who used it, that "finally" strikes me as a little overstated.

But I mostly bring it up because it raises an interesting question:

What if Dr. Josef Mengele had developed some wondrously efficacious vaccines from the bodies of the various prisoners before they were gassed at Auschwitz?

Do you think such vaccines would be as popular as the ones described above?

It's not a matter of:

"What if the American aerospace industry used technology that was developed by Wernher Von Braun using the bodies of various prisoners before killing 20,000 of them?"

It did.

But I have a feeling you don't think that all people of good conscience should revile, condemn and recoil from it for that in the present.

Why is that?

" Nazi schmazi," says Wernher von Braun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro

HTML fail

@#326 --

Indeed. It was not actually my intention to condemn either him or rocket science, though I condemn the slave labor, of course.

To JGC:
Are you still out there?
I’ll repeat my question:
What do you, as a self-described observant Jew, believe about an afterlife?

“Dr. Barker said he sees fetal cells as a “steppingstone” to other technology. “Outside the ethical debate around fetal tissue, the logistics is a nightmare,” he said. “For every half brain we transplant, we have to collect dopamine cells from THREE TO FOUR FETUSES.”

The aim would be to use dopamine cells originally derived from embryos, but multiplied indefinitely in a lab, which wouldn’t require ongoing destruction of embryos, he said.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/use-of-fetal-tissue-use-in-research-back-in…

Nice “aim”, Dr. Barker.
But for the time being, I guess you’ll have to hope the Planned Parenthood production line keeps running at full speed.

Indeed. It was not actually my intention to condemn either him or rocket science, though I condemn the slave labor, of course.

You're on solid ground overall.

No pun intended; I'm weary.

^ Blockquote fail.

Nice “aim”, Dr. Barker.

Yes, the tactical shift back from embryonic to fetal stem cells among the theocratic set has already been noted.

I just now tried to find the latest annual report of Planned Parenthood and went to their website:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/download_file/view/12166/17264

But my search was frustrated, because all I got was
“Our normal site is currently undergoing maintenance.”

I wonder how often that maintenance happens?

But just below that public service announcement you see
“Make your secure online gift here” “Donate Now” [button]

So at least the money part is still operational.

But my search was frustrated, because all I got was
“Our normal site is currently undergoing maintenance.”

I wonder how often that maintenance happens?

Your onanism is duly noted. Again.

The petulance is a nice touch, though.

I don't recall seeing anything anti-vaccine in anti-abortion publications. It looks like the anti-vaccine people have picked an ineffective tactic.

To #6: Does this mean only a socialist can support crime control?

For Krebiozen, and most of the others here, who can’t stomach references to the “goat herders” book (i.e. the Bible), Catholic teaching/philosophy, or ANY religious stuff, in regards to the abortion issue…
Here are some more pieces by Nat Hentoff, secular Jew and atheist:
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/hentoff.html

I like to remind people that The Clergy were prominent in the movement to legalize abortion, just as they were prominent in the Civil Rights Movement and other efforts to demonstrate God's love in the service of social justice. Certain malefactors have been studiously burying that part of our history, but it's not going to work so long as people of good will feel called to stand up and testify to the truth.

For Krebiozen, and most of the others here, who can’t stomach references to the “goat herders” book (i.e. the Bible), Catholic teaching/philosophy, or ANY religious stuff, in regards to the abortion issue…

Your desperation is truly pathetic. You have no knowledge whatever of "religious stuff" in general.

As I've noted at Jason's crib, your fundamental problem is that you can't think: the only thing you really have in your rhetorical bag is the overblown role-playing game manual that is the RCC catechism.

And so now, you come up with this insane shіt:

Here are some more pieces by Nat Hentoff, secular Jew and atheist

Why, precisely, the fυck is anyone supposed to be impressed by Nat Fυcking Hentoff? To the extent that he helped bring about Mingus's Black Saint and the Sinner Lady, I'm tremendously grateful.

But for your part, it's identical to your weird-ass, repetitive intoning that Randomly Invoking Aristotle Is Most Certainly Not An Argument From Authority.

Could you find something from Lester Bangs?

For Krebiozen, and most of the others here, who can’t stomach references to the “goat herders” book (i.e. the Bible), Catholic teaching/philosophy, or ANY religious stuff, in regards to the abortion issue…

So it's not just you being unable to stomach others dismissing your 'religious stuff' as the sole authority on the issue?

What do you, as a self-described observant Jew, believe about an afterlife?

Are you seriously that ineducable? We just covered this on the other thread.

Oh, well.

To quote the Jewish Virtual Library:

Olam haBa (afterlife) is rarely discussed in Jewish life, be it among Reform, Conservative, or Orthodox Jews. This is in marked contrast to the religious traditions of the people among whom the Jews have lived....Jewish teachings on the subject of afterlife are sparse: The Torah, the most important Jewish text, has no clear reference to afterlife at all.

In a very general way, it's a Jewish belief that in the afterlife, the righteous are rewarded and the wicked punished.

But that's about all there is to say about it. It has virtually nothing to do with the observance or practice of Judaism. Jews do right for its own sake. And we already know what you think about that:

Commitment to epistemic virtues? I guess you mean knowing for the sake of knowing. Kind of like “ars gratis artis”. Both garbage.

I wonder how often that maintenance happens?

Probably whenever something in the news constitutes too much of a security risk for them to keep the whole site up and running.

But if by "annual report" you mean "Form 990," it's on Guidestar anyway. And if by "annual report" you mean "annual report," the cached version is still accessible.

So it would serve no nefarious purpose for them to take it down.

In a very general way, it’s a Jewish belief that in the afterlife, the righteous are rewarded and the wicked punished.

But that’s about all there is to say about it. It has virtually nothing to do with the observance or practice of Judaism.

^^That righteousness is not contingent on observance in Judaism is demonstrated by the recognition of the Righteous Among the Nations, for example.

Joseph Hertzlinger: "I don’t recall seeing anything anti-vaccine in anti-abortion publications."

Please read my comments #20 and #214. Click on the links I provided.

The objection to 'religious stuff ' is based on the conviction shared by people of many different beliefs, that public policy- particularly when it comes to questions of science and medicine - should not be based on religious doctrine.

Re: PP's dumb 3% statistic

If pedophiles used the same tactics as Planned Parenthood to minimize their crimes:
"So you see, sexual abuse of minors is only 3% of the pedophile's interaction with children, your honor"

Activities With children in year 2015

Providing meals : 65
Rides in car: 147
Supplying educational reading material: 247
Candies handed out in neighborhood: 580
Offering special counsel: 120
Providing gifts: 70
Providing baths: 55
Gentle hugs: 120
Sexual abuse of children: 43

Cecile Richards should be in jail.

Cecile Richards should be in jail.

Only in a 3rd world theocracy. Perhaps you should move, AH, since a secular nation like the US doesn't regulate things to your liking.

“So you see, sexual abuse of minors is only 3% of the pedophile’s interaction with children, your honor”

You should probably leave the analogies to the Roman Catholic Church out of it if you want to keep S.N. as your wing man.

wow, you give secularists a bad name.

Oh Nadar, you're bigotry is so cute. It's a good thing you've got it, cause that's about all you got.

AH,

Re: PP’s dumb 3% statistic

If pedophiles used the same tactics as Planned Parenthood to minimize their crimes:
“So you see, sexual abuse of minors is only 3% of the pedophile’s interaction with children, your honor”

Funny you should bring that up...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/07/13/pope_francis_intervie…

I'm sure in this case you wouldn't argue that we should discard the other 98%?

Oh Nadar, you’re bigotry is so cute. It’s a good thing you’ve got it, cause that’s about all you got.

We can't all have failed attempts at constructing insults out of people's names, after all, not to mention spluttering asshurt when stupid analogies blow up in our face.

Oh Nadar, you crack me up.

You opened the door when you brought up pedophilia. Did you think no one was going to walk through it?

Oh, AH, you crack me up. Both your lack of morality and civility show who well you serve your particular deity. Still trying to tell women what to do with their bodies based on invisible sky fairies?

If pedophiles used the same tactics as Planned Parenthood to minimize their crimes

I wasn't aware that Planned Parenthood had been convicted of any crime.

I'd suggest that an example using "pedophiles" should be a no go in any argument that suggests government should force the religious beliefs of particular group on all members of society and/or which attempts to claim a moral high ground for that religious belief,

http://www.awkwardmomentsbible.com/shocking-pastors-on-the-prowl/

I can understand why those mentioned in the above would be against anything that might reduce the number of children ... particularly those in vulnerable circumstances, e.g., poverty, abuse, lack of parental attention, etc.. ,,, in their community.

If you want to read the papers in context you can do so. The quotes I have provided have been sourced. I understand you don’t like it, but that is the proof. I didn’t write these sources. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it invalid. If you have grave doubts, fine, I really don’t care. You can in fact get the papers, read them, get the books read them. Nothing is stopping you.

Actually, something is. Because (unsurprisingly) the quotes from Donald and Harranz aren't sourced to books or papers, and (equally unsurprisingly) appear to exist exclusively in the form of rumors on the internet.

The third quote you provided -- ostensibly proving that polio-vaccine research was carried out on live babies who arrived at the lab after having been ripped from the womb by abortionists at ten-to-20 weeks -- is sourced to a paper that was published in 1952.

I can't find the text of the paper. (Or, ftm, an abstract.) But I second Krebiozen's skepticism about embryos being dissected while their hearts were still beating.

I mean, there's a 0% chance of survival outside the womb at ten-to-20 weeks now, in the present, even with the use of every available aid in the neo-natal intensive care unit.

So I don't see how it could have been any less impossible prior to 1952.

Someone should have warned AH that on this blog, if you cite a reference, some killjoy is going to go look it up.

But I second Krebiozen’s skepticism about embryos being dissected while their hearts were still beating.

The quote (which is accurate; G—le Books has a scan of the bound volume, although only accessible in snapshots) doesn't actually state this; he has to hitch it to another wagon before trying to get away with the ol' switcheroo.

Or actually not look it up because they hold religious bigotry and child killing as their sacred beliefs.

PP murders children.

See Noevo,

Gee, I’m surprised you didn’t read a little more from that very short article.

Why? The rest of it has little or no relevance to the ethics of abortion.

It goes on to say things such as
“Whenever I see that kind of story, where everybody agrees, I know there’s something wrong,’ Hentoff told the Times…

That seems an odd attitude; reminiscent of oppositional defiance syndrome.

“He came across the published reports of experiments in what doctors at Yale-New Haven Hospital called ‘early death as a management option’ for infants ‘considered to have little or no hope of achieving meaningful ‘humanhood.’

What does infanticide have to do with abortions? Remember, the majority of US abortions take place earlier than 6 weeks gestation and 90% earlier than 13 weeks, a whole 27 weeks before term. If you can't argue against a 13-week abortion without referring to infanticide I'd say your argument's in trouble.

He talked with handicapped people who could have been killed by abortion.”

My son has a very similar condition to the child on the article and required similar life-saving surgery. I'm glad he wasn't aborted and that we didn't leave him at the hospital and forget we had a baby as we were advised - we were very young and this was 1980 when attitudes, I hope, were different. However, I would not condemn someone who did abort a pregnancy because of disability. I see no inconsistency in this.

Similarly my existence was an accident - my parents hadn't planned on having me, their marriage was nearly at an end, and both were pro-choice so my mother's pregnancy with me could easily have been aborted, but it wasn't. I would not condemn a woman who did have an abortion in similar circumstances.

Neither of these experiences changes my views on elective early abortion, nor on later abortion for severe disability. Why would they?

“When Hentoff’s pro-choice friends heard about his new pro-life convictions (which, to them, were heresies), they were aghast, but he didn’t back down: “Here were liberals, decent people, fully convinced themselves that they were for individual rights and liberties but willing to send into eternity these infants because they were imperfect, inconvenient, costly.

The only arguments in favor of infanticide I have seen, and which I personally support are those like the Groningen Protocol, which allows the killing of "infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering". It isn't imperfection, inconvenience or cost that drives this protocol, but unbearable and intractable suffering.

I saw the same attitude on the part of the same kinds of people toward abortion, and I thought it was pretty horrifying.”

This is a description of his emotional reaction to his friends' attitudes, not a rational argument.

“… he is hardly a political or social conservative. His courage and independence on the issue of life deserves note.

I admire his courage in standing up for his convictions but I think they are sadly misplaced. They are clearly based on his emotional reactions, on anthropomorphizing and empathizing with an fetus, not on reason.

“Hentoff’s transformation is recounted in The Debate Since Roe: Making the Case Against Abortion 1975-2010 , a powerful collection of essays from the Human Life Review , which has received excellent reviews and which other reporters could learn a great deal from.”

I dug around and realized that Hentoff's Paulian conversion took place in 1984, 21 years ago, when attitudes were very different, I hope; I have related my experience, above.

AH: "PP murders children."

As has been explained to you many times, they don't.

While, on the other hand, those following the unscientific notions of you invisible sky fairy have often killed women and their fetuses like Savita Halappanavar.

There is blood on yours and their hands for every woman who has died because the followers of your invisible sky fairy thought the fetus was more important than the life and health of the woman. Just as there is blood on your hands for anyone who suffers an illness like rubella, rabies, etc. because you disagree with how the cells were cultured.

@#347 --

Re: Your dumb analogy

Pedophiles provide meals, gifts, car rides and baths to children in order to groom them for sexual abuse. Because their mission is sexual abuse not ending child hunger, etc.

Planned Parenthood does not provide 97% of its services to millions of women in order to groom a much smaller number of entirely different women for the abortions that make up the remaining 3%. Because its mission is not abortion but the provision of women's health services to women who need them.

See the difference?

Chris I think it's you who believes in an invisible sky fairy.
Its fascinating how you've decided, I have blood on my hands, but the people who are responsible for actually killing children are your heroes.

So AH's degraded (or is that upgraded) into "I know you are but what am I?"

No Ann I dont. PP murders children. If they sell sunshine on the side, they are still murdering children, and shamming their data to pretend like it's really no big deal. Eyes wide open?

No Ann I dont. PP murders children.

Obviously most commenters in this thread don't agree with you and have explained why they don't agree with you and aren't going to change their view of the matter..

So exactly what do you hope to achieve with your repetitious yammering?

Except that a) they don't murder children and b) they don't fake data. Both are crimes and no one has charged Planned Parenthood with either.

Sorry, blockquote fail on #369

Should have been:

No Ann I dont. PP murders children.

AH, until you come up with real data that the deity that you revere which requires the needs of a fetus to come before children and grown women actually exists, it will be an "invisible sky fairy." Your service to this fantasy critter is just the same as believing in what Dr. Hall calls "Tooth Fairy Science."

Your morality has been questioned since you have shown you do not value actual facts, data, children or grown women. You favor the lies proffered by David Daleiden and others. Liars are immoral. Since you believe in liars you are immoral. Deal with it.

And stop trying to enforce you religion on others. If you don't want to get an abortion, the MMR, or rabies vaccine that is okay. Just don't restrict them to others who really need them.

#368 AH:

No Ann I dont. PP murders children. If they sell sunshine on the side, they are still murdering children,

Of course, you will provide some reference to birth certificates for some of these children alleged to have been murdered.

and shamming their data to pretend like it’s really no big deal.

And you will provide evidence for the "shamming" of data, right.
I didn't think you would or even could.

Oh Bill, are you crabby because I'm calling out your "women's health" heroes?

Chris, child killers are immoral. They belong in prison.

Oh Bill, are you crabby because I’m calling out your “women’s health” heroes?

Project much, Mr. Pedophilia Gambit?

Abortions carried out legally are not crimes, therefore not murder and not subject to prison terms.

AH: "Chris, child killers are immoral. They belong in prison"

Of course they do. Except that Planned Parenthood has not done that.

Pedophiles belong in prison, and yet some just get disability benefits, salary and consulting works. Isn't hypocrisy wonderful? (and two second Google searches)

“He came across the published reports of experiments in what doctors at Yale-New Haven Hospital called ‘early death as a management option’ for infants ‘considered to have little or no hope of achieving meaningful ‘humanhood.’

By which he means that when he "dug into" his subject, he couldn't come up with any better evidence that a society that tolerated abortion was on a slippery slope leading to euthanasia for the disabled than a 1973 piece in the New England Journal of Medicine by two (2) doctors at Yale-New Haven reporting that out of the 299 deaths that occurred in the neonatal unit there between 1970 and 1972, 43 were the result of their decision to withhold treatment with parental consent.

That was just as illegal and unpopular in 1973 as it was in 1984 and is now, needless to say. But needless to say, he doesn't mention that the piece was promptly greeted with national outrage and condemnation at the time. Because the only reason he's bringing it up at all is in order to associate abortion with something that reliably provokes exactly that response, validity no object.

Abortions carried out legally are not crimes, therefore not murder and not subject to prison terms.

They are, of course, subject to summary execution, etc.

child killers are immoral. They belong in prison.

Child killers do end up in prison.

Unless of course they have a "religious belief" get out of jail free card.

http://www.vocativ.com/culture/religion/faith-healing-deaths/

Some anti-abortionists also end up in prison, though not for their anti-abortion views:

http://articles.philly.com/2001-06-23/news/25323661_1_child-pornography…

They are, of course, subject to summary execution, etc

A great many actions that are not subject to severe legal penalties are subject to summary execution. This would include such high crimes as "lookin' at me funny."

No Ann I dont. PP murders children. If they sell sunshine on the side, they are still murdering children,

Please explain how 97% of the services they provide can be characterized as something they do "on the side".

and shamming their data to pretend like it’s really no big deal.

Please also explain how the data is a sham.

Eyes wide open?

Yes. That's why I can clearly see that it's not possible for Planned Parenthood to pretend that 97% of the services it provides aren't abortions unless it's a pretense that they're not.

Dear abortion lovers, this will probably break your logic meters, but it just so happens that most people who oppose abortion also oppose other types of heinous crimes including child sex abuse , murder and war. Most people who oppose abortion do so because killing is wrong. Most people who oppose abortion also oppose bigotry. I know you may have read otherwise from the Huff Po and Slate. This is probably a shock to you, but those sources don't tend accurately represent the majority of prolife people.

"Most people who oppose abortion also oppose bigotry."

Says the poster who brought up pedophilia.

Ann I know you love PP, and love is blind. It's already been explained why their numbers are a sham. They kill over 300,000 children a year. Over 90% of their "pregnancy related services" end in abortion. The mammograms and healthcare would be nice and fine, but gee I just have to be insistent in my opposition to murdering children but PP really is committed to killing them.

those sources don’t tend accurately represent the majority of prolife people.

Luckily for everybody, neither do you.

most people who oppose abortion also oppose other types of heinous crimes including child sex abuse , murder and war.

I have encountered some folks here and there who are anti-abortion and also against war, capital punishment, etc. This position is at least consistent and I can respect if to a certain degree; after all, if I believed that fetuses were people, I'd certainly be against abortion myself. I simply see no reason to conclude that a mass of cells with no characteristic human brain activity, etc., can properly be called a "person." Abortion does kill or end something: a potential life, and there's something sad about that, but not in a way that trumps a woman's right to her own uterus and life.

Oh gaist, how would you know? Are you cranky?

^ But TBH, most anti-abortion folks are perfectly fine with - maybe not murder in the narrow sense, but war, capital punishment, etc. Such a position is repugnant, really.

I've met pro-life people, quite a few of them, and they tend to be considerate, compassionate and not trying to pretend anybody who disagrees with them is a murdering paedophile.

but gee I just have to be insistent in my opposition

...to telling the truth?

Oh gaist, how would you know? Are you cranky?

Let's see... "crabby," "cranky,".... I think maybe that line could use some fixing up:

Oh gaist, how would you know? Are you cranky on the rag?

JP, I disagree, that is a stereotype that is frequently used by people opposed to the prolife movement.

Gaist, reading comprehension: try it sometime. Analogies can be your friend. Just to be clear for Gaist and those who do not understand, everyone who disagrees with me is not a murdering pedophile. That would be a wrong thing to say. Thank you.

They also tend not to resort to pissy fits when others don't immediately agree with them.

Typically they also, unlike you, seem like decent human beings I wouldn't mind hanging out with, despite possibble differences of opinion.

JP, I disagree, that is a stereotype that is frequently used by people opposed to the prolife movement.

In my own admittedly anecdotal experience, it's a pretty accurate stereotype, although there are notable and not entirely infrequent exceptions. Hold on a minute and I'll see if I can find some data on this.

AH: "Dear abortion lovers,"

We, or at least I, do not love abortions. We understand that they are necessary. Many times to save the mother. I do not like that as a primary means of birth control, which is why I find that the Roman Catholic Church opposition to contraception to be abhorrent and unrealistic.

"Over 90% of their “pregnancy related services” end in abortion."

That is pretty good cherry picking. Despite being told over and over again 97% of their services do not include abortion. You realize that the way you stated that is kind of a lie. You do realize that lying is immoral, right?

I am not finding the type of survey data that I had in mind, but one may note that states which practice capital punishment tend to overlap with states which restrict abortion.

^ Messed up the link: the first half links to a different thing than the second half, but I intended to make it clearer with a break in between. Also note that the second half leads to a PDF.

most people who oppose abortion also oppose other types of heinous crimes including child sex abuse , murder and war.

This statement calls out for some actual data, from some non-biased source. Got any? I didn't think you would.

Most people who oppose abortion do so because killing is wrong.

That could be included in the data you haven't supplied (or referenced). Got any?

Most people who oppose abortion also oppose bigotry.

This is doubtful, since the states with the strongest anti-woman support seems to coincide with those of highest bigotry. Data, of course, could change those appearances. Got any?

Chris, I don't think you know much of anything about catholic teaching, based on most of your comments thus far. But you are correct about opposing contraception. Different thread.

I'm not sure you know what a lie is.

I know you may have read otherwise from the Huff Po and Slate.

No.

In fact, I've never seen anyone anywhere arguing that most people who oppose abortion are in favor of bigotry, sex abuse, murder, war and heinous crimes generally.

You're actually the one who makes a habit out of suggesting that people who disagree with you about abortion are therefore guilty of some unrelated crime, moral failing, or assorted other bad act when you have no reason to think that they are.

For example:

Ann I know you love PP, and love is blind.

Ninety-seven percent of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are for care and treatment that has nothing to do with abortion.

That being the case, saying so is not indicative of bias. It's indicative of intact reality-testing.

It’s already been explained why their numbers are a sham.

No, it emphatically has not. Are 97% of their services unrelated to abortion?

If not, that figure is not a sham.

They kill over 300,000 children a year. Over 90% of their “pregnancy related services” end in abortion. The mammograms and healthcare would be nice and fine, but gee I just have to be insistent in my opposition to murdering children but PP really is committed to killing them.

Unless you have to be insistent about making unrelated, false and insupportable claims about them in order to do that, the one has nothing to do with the other.

Go back and read the thread. You can't miss it.

Blockquote fail.

Ann PP annual report is available online. My figures are correct. Nice try.

Ann PP annual report is available online. My figures are correct.

I guess it's time for you to begin citing the relevant portions, now isn't it? And I do mean "citing."

Nice try.

Indeed.

So, what percentage of everything PP does is related to abortion?

They kill over 300,000 children a year. Over 90% of their “pregnancy related services” end in abortion.

They don't kill any children.

Re: the 90% claim.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

@ Chris

We, or at least I, do not love abortions. We understand that they are necessary. Many times to save the mother. I do not like that as a primary means of birth control, which is why I find that the Roman Catholic Church opposition to contraception to be abhorrent and unrealistic.

This.
I do hope my lengthy posts here showed my position to be very similar.
Still waiting for SN and AH to explain their magical solution to make the actual numbers of abortion going down in a meaningful way.

Although that will require they understand some basic economical laws, notably offer and demand. Laws are inefficient at stopping something for which both an offer and a demand exist. They only increase its price and push it into a parallel market.

SN reproached me to do nothing about abortion. Well, I love to tell youngsters around me how Americans have - or had -these ABC education programs. Abstinence, Be faithful, or at least wear a d@mn c0nd0m.
What do our critics do, aside being all sanctimonious on some internet site?

Nadar, I know you're mad, but I'm sure you're capable.
DGR, fetuses are children.

AH #384
'' Most people who oppose abortion also oppose bigotry''

Being against abortion is bigotry by definition. lol.

Based on the available evidence, including PPs own annual reports, that AH wouldn't know the truth even if it came up and bit him.

Garoua, then I guess being for it is bigotry by definition also. Lol

DGR, fetuses are children.

In your mind.

Garoua, then I guess being for it is bigotry by definition also. Lol

Who am I intolerant towards if I think women should have a right to choose?

Re: The number of abortions at Planned Parenthood :They reported 329,445 in 2010, 333,924 in 2011 and 327,166 in 2012.

DGR according to reality, and the dictionary.

And that represents "90%" how exactly?

DGR according to reality, and the dictionary.

Neither legally, nor medically.

Re: The number of abortions at Planned Parenthood :They reported 329,445 in 2010, 333,924 in 2011 and 327,166 in 2012.

And?

Anyway.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contraceptive_serv.html

According to the above "In 2013, publicly funded family planning services helped women to avoid 2 million unintended pregnancies, which would have resulted in about 1 million unintended births and nearly 700,000 abortions."

Clearly Planned Parenthood is providing a valuable service.

To ann #342:

Thanks for trying to educate me about Jewish views on the afterlife.

But I wasn’t asking about Jewish views in general, I was asking for the views of one particular observant Jew, JGC.

JGC, besides being pro-abortion, has said some things that caused me to wonder. Such as

“How is “Love me or burn in hell for all eternity!” not a use of force?”

[And I thought, does he even believe in hell to begin with?]

And “…death and disease occurred long before human beings capable of embracing or rejecting a putative god existed on this planet.”

[And I thought, “putative” “god”? Does he even believe in God?]

I know you’re a big girl, or maybe just a girl with a big head, but JGC’s a big boy. He can answer for himself.

P.S.
The full quote:
“Commitment to epistemic virtues? I guess you mean knowing for the sake of knowing. Kind of like “ars gratis artis”. Both garbage.
Knowing just for the hell of it. And in this case, arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Too bad the entire field of epistemology, of which science is one off-shoot, is just so much mental masturbation when it is without Catholic philosophy.”

Yes, I think that's about right.

AH: "Re: The number of abortions at Planned Parenthood :They reported 329,445 in 2010, 333,924 in 2011 and 327,166 in 2012."

Okay, that is the numerator, now what is the denominator? Just saying that is "90%" without telling us, with references, the total number of women getting services, including details of those services, is lying by omission.

As noted above, opposition to contraception, and emphasis on abstinence is unrealistic. This is what leads to unwanted pregnancies and spread of sexually transmitted diseases in the real world. And abortions.

If you want to prevent abortions, then do not oppose contraception. Do do otherwise is hypocritical.

gaist @ 367

AH @ 366 is merely proving the classic disregard most so called "pro lifers" have for the life and health of the mother.Thereby proving the point Chris made @ 364.

Over 90% of their “pregnancy related services” end in abortion.

That's basically just a rhetorically dishonest way of making it Planned Parenthood's fault that affordable, accessible prenatal/obstetric care is the only kind that's already available to virtually all women at almost any clinic or hospital that provides it, when in fact it says nothing about them except that they're true to their mission statement.

But besides that, unless:

(a) the 1,128,783 pregnancy tests on their last annual report don't count as pregnancy-related; and

(b) more than two-thirds of them were negative and all the others led to abortion

I don't see how it could be true.

Citation?

Kudos to my fellows who, while I was enjoying the weekend, were trying to pull AH's head out of its rectal position and received nothing but insults for their work.

Since AH still hasn't figured out that we DO check references, and expect to see the ORIGINAL citation, not the cite from the cite from the cherrypicking, I will only say that, like the others, until we are given the original citation (not the links leading to antiabortion sites), I don't accept or believe anything AH says.

AH: the world isn't entirely Catholic. The world isn't entirely Christian, or even necessarily religious. So why are you trying to force your religious views upon everyone?

As far as my views about abortion: As noted above (IIRC Narad?) said, I believe abortions should be legal, safe and RARE. Preferably no pregnancy would occur unless wanted, and every child would be a wanted child. This means good sex education, cheap/free contraception, and support for pregnancy and afterward is available to all.

Unfortunately, to most of the antiabortionists, the ONLY important thing is the thing inside the uterus. The external carrier (AKA woman) is not at all important except as a thing. As noted above, if the WOMAN was considered at all important, Savita wouldn't have died. The poor 9 year old in South America wouldn't have been excommunicated (along with her mother and the doctors) from her church, while her scumbag stepfather who impregnated her got away with a slap on the wrist and is STILL an accepted church member.

In countries where contraception is free or inexpensive, good sex education is given, and there is support AFTER the birth of a child for the mother in the form of child care, money, etc, abortions are FAR more infrequent than in the US. I wonder why....

Knowing just for the hell of it. And in this case, arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Of course, you're happy to engage in the latter while being utterly ignorant just for the hell of it. Offhand, in just two days, there's the screaming boner about marriage licenses and utter dimwittery about U1.27.

Regarding the multiple attacks on AH for his analogy in #347, just one thought:

Unlike the Catholic Church with the sexual abuse scandal (and the equal or greater scandal in other religions, in homes, and in the public schools),
Planned Parenthood is PROUD of ITS scandal (i.e. abortions) and lobbies publicly and furiously for protections to continue its scandalous activity.

PP appears to be fully transparent in its activities, unlike the Catholic Church, which, to this day, refuses to accept responsibility for the aiding and abetting of pedophilic priests...

And that represents “90%” how exactly?:

I believe AH may just be using the "90%" erroneously referred to by Senator Jon Kyl and discussed here.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

Apparently AH just accepts whatever drivel is published on whichever anti-abortion site(s) AH frequents without verifying the accuracy of that drivel.

Regarding the multiple attacks on AH for his analogy in #347, just one thought:

I'd like to think there was an unsaid "before I leave" following "just one thought".

But, that would just be wishful thinking.

At any rate, I didn't see the responses to AH's abysmally stupid comment as "attacks".

More in the way of constructive criticism intended to help AH develop their obviously sub par reasoning skills.

JGC, besides being pro-abortion, has said some things that caused me to wonder. Such as

“How is “Love me or burn in hell for all eternity!” not a use of force?”

[And I thought, does he even believe in hell to begin with?]

First of all, since that question was addressed to AH, what JGC, as a self-described observant Jew, believes about the afterlife is irrelevant to it.

And second of all, since Judaism doesn't include the belief that people who fail to love G-d burn in hell for all eternity, it has no implications for whether any Jew is or is not observant.

And “…death and disease occurred long before human beings capable of embracing or rejecting a putative god existed on this planet.”

[And I thought, “putative” “god”? Does he even believe in God?]

Right. But the question you asked was what he, as a self-described observant Jew, believed about the afterlife.

I know you’re a big girl, or maybe just a girl with a big head, but JGC’s a big boy. He can answer for himself.

I have an ordinary-size head. But otherwise, true enough.

See Noevo:

So are you saying that if Planned Parenthood tried to be secretive about the abortions and used that government money that you're so upset about (despite it not actually going to support abortions) to pay off the women who had abortions to keep them quiet then you'd be okay with it?

That's the Catholic Church approach. But I have trouble believing that you're support it in this situation.

To ann #379:

“[Nat Hentoff] couldn’t come up with any better evidence that a society that tolerated abortion was on a slippery slope leading to euthanasia for the disabled than a 1973 piece… 43 [deaths] were the result of their decision to withhold treatment with parental consent. That was just as illegal and unpopular in 1973 as it was in 1984…”

Maybe not full blown, wide-spread euthanasia.
But not even a slippery slope?

“Physician aid in dying (PAD), or assisted suicide, is legal in the states of Washington, Oregon, Vermont and Bernalillo County, New Mexico… The key difference between euthanasia and PAD is who administers the lethal dose of medication. Euthanasia entails the physician or another third party administering the medication, whereas PAD requires the patient to self-administer the medication …”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_United_States#Legislati…

Here’s some new video of a guy lots of people want to euthanize.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33078828

“Last month the European Court ruled that his feeding tubes could be removed without breaching his human rights.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vincent-lambert-case-fra…

Sounds similar to this country’s Terri Schiavo case, where she was starved and dehydrated to death.

Unlike the Catholic Church with the sexual abuse scandal (and the equal or greater scandal in other religions, in homes, and in the public schools),
Planned Parenthood is PROUD of ITS scandal (i.e. abortions) and lobbies publicly and furiously for protections to continue its scandalous activity.

Yah, the RCC was so not-proud that they deliberately covered it up for as long as they possibly could and then fought tooth and nail against facing the legal consequences.

They'd still be at it if they could be.

Ann PP annual report is available online.

Yes, I know. As I said, that's where I got the number of pregnancy tests from.

My figures are correct.

Since the annual report says that 97% of their services are unrelated to abortion and doesn't say that 90% of their pregnancy-related services end in abortion, that's a non sequitur.

Nice try.

Right back atcha.

To ann #379:

“[Nat Hentoff] couldn’t come up with any better evidence that a society that tolerated abortion was on a slippery slope leading to euthanasia for the disabled than a 1973 piece… 43 [deaths] were the result of their decision to withhold treatment with parental consent. That was just as illegal and unpopular in 1973 as it was in 1984…”

Maybe not full blown, wide-spread euthanasia.
But not even a slippery slope?

“Physician aid in dying (PAD), or assisted suicide, is legal in the states of Washington, Oregon, Vermont and Bernalillo County, New Mexico… The key difference between euthanasia and PAD is who administers the lethal dose of medication. Euthanasia entails the physician or another third party administering the medication, whereas PAD requires the patient to self-administer the medication …”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_United_States#Legislati…

Here’s some new video of a guy lots of people want to euthanize.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33078828

Another article in The Independent notes “Last month the European Court ruled that his feeding tubes could be removed without breaching his human rights.”

Sounds similar to this country’s Terri Schiavo case, where she was starved and dehydrated to death.

To AH, as a christian myself, I would like to know why you are so convinced human life starts at conception. I have often thought about this but the Bible does not speak of it. I think that after the brain is semiformed, then human life has started just as when the brain dies the human life has ended, and so abortion after then is murder, but before then I honestly don't know.

But not even a slippery slope?

You mean like the slippery slope the Gipper cautioned against here?

https://youtu.be/fRdLpem-AAs

“As far as my views about abortion: As noted above … I believe abortions should be legal, safe and RARE.”

Just like appendectomies or cancer treatments.
Babies as disease.

Regarding the multiple attacks on AH for his analogy in #347, just one thought

The irony of this* following immediately on the heels of the utterly gratuitous "big girl," "girl with a big head," "big boy" demonstration of your basic character is not lost.

* Maybe it's a lack of caffeine, but I really couldn't come up with a suitable recasting; it's a Fowlerian "fused participle" to my eye.

@#435 --

We weren't on a slippery slope that led to euthanizing the disabled at birth in 1973, or 1984, and we're not on one now.

During the only time period during which eliminating the unfit from society enjoyed any political popularity in this country at all, abortion was completely taboo and entirely illegal.

I conclude from this that there's no cause-and-effect relationship between the two in either direction and no evidence of any.

Nat Hentoff's implications to the contrary are therefore baseless.

To ann #439:

“We weren’t on a slippery slope that led to euthanizing the disabled at birth in 1973, or 1984, and we’re not on one now.
During the only time period during which eliminating the unfit from society enjoyed any political popularity in this country at all, abortion was completely taboo and entirely illegal.”

Do mean the time period of racist and eugenicist Margaret Sanger, the founder of what became Planned Parenthood?

As noted above (IIRC Narad?) said, I believe abortions should be legal, safe and RARE.

Helianthus and others. Given the level of ideation on display in AH's and S.N.'s comments, I haven't felt any need to advance a platform.

Sounds similar to this country’s Terri Schiavo case, where she was starved and dehydrated to death.

Clearly God has no problem with people starving to death:

http://www.poverty.com/

Who are you to question God's will?

To ann and to all others here besides AH:

Why is it that all of you would be in favor of denying first graders now the right to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

I’m trying to understand how you could possibly think this is acceptable and rational.

Please explain why you’re for this.

“As far as my views about abortion: As noted above … I believe abortions should be legal, safe and RARE.”

Just like appendectomies or cancer treatments.
Babies as disease.

Did you forget the part where you were cheerleading for rubella?

Why is it that all of you would be in favor of denying first graders now the right to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

I’m trying to understand how you could possibly think this is acceptable and rational.

Please explain why you’re for this.

What are you babbling about now?

He's complaining about a statement made by AH....this should be fun.

SN, #440:

Do mean the time period of racist and eugenicist Margaret Sanger, the founder of what became Planned Parenthood?

Even assuming your analysis of Ms Sanger to be accurate, of what pertinence is to the topic of discussion?
Oh, yes, that's right. It's another case of Original Sin, the doctrine the christianities count on for their cash flow.

Why is it that all of you would be in favor of denying first graders now the right to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

Your predictable topic swerve is noted, but I've already noted that the "commonly-accepted practice"* you're invoking (again) seems to have no referent.

This is the original version:

Feeling free to kill the life in the womb because it’s “non-viable” NOW is very much like our commonly-accepted practice of denying children the right to EVER get a college education in the future. We quite sensibly deny children a future college education because they are non-college material NOW.
(And this saves parents’ a lot of work and worry over how to pay for those college tuitions. Whew! College-be-gone, worry-be-gone.

And baby-be-gone. Viability schmiability.

* Yes, reproducing this hyphen in the run of text pained me.

@#440 --

Yes. The time period I mean is the very one in which Margaret Sanger's views on race and eugenics were briefly both popular and widely accepted as scientifically valid, but did not lead to a slippery slope on which they became ever-increasingly more so.

And it's also the very one in which Margaret Sanger's advocacy for birth control was both unpopular and widely opposed and didn't become significantly less so until considerably after she founded Planned Parenthood in 1946, by which time she was no longer affiliated with racial eugenics, which were never really her thing to begin with. Her primary cause was contraception.

AFAIK, she was never for euthanizing the unfit.

Bill Price @ 448:

There's an image of Margaret Sanger photoshopped into a KKK meeting that's all over the wingnuttosphere, along with a quote with a few negative particles edited out. No matter how many times the original picture sans KKK, and the original quote are shown to them, they won't give it up.

Figures Egnor would buy it.

Sounds similar to this country’s Terri Schiavo case, where she was starved and dehydrated to death which cemented the right to refuse medical treatment.

FTFY.

To ann and to all others here besides AH:

Why is it that all of you would be in favor of denying first graders now the right to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

Practically all of my posts have been about either what is or isn't a part of Judaism or what is or isn't a factually accurate statement about the services provided by Planned Parenthood.

So I have no idea where you're getting that from.

I forgot that I also pointed out that Nat Hentoff's claims were baseless.

But they are. So it's a good thing that saying so does not deny anybody the right to anything. And I still have no idea where you're getting that from.

So I have no idea where you’re getting that from.

Well, he's just trying to change the subject, but I suspect that it's some sort of freakish Common Core bad trip to go along with his misogyny born of resentment, dripping racism regarding Obanana, and so forth.

Perhaps he'll finally hork up the basis of the evasion tactic on his own.

Oh yeah!

I also pointed out that if it was morally obligatory to forever condemn and shun all scientific advances that the Nazis made by using the bodies of Jews before exterminating them, no person of good conscience could have anything to do with the aerospace industry.

But I wasn't advocating for that. I was just pointing it out. So again, no denial of rights.

This is probably a shock to you, but those sources don’t tend accurately represent the majority of prolife people.

Well, AH, you're fond of comparisons, right? Percentages?

OK? We're set then. How many chopper-uppers of live children Clayton Waagners have the opponents of forced birth produced?

Remember, you made a quantitative statement:

Most people who oppose abortion do so because killing is wrong.

Get cipherin', with no false-equivalence excuses.

Why is it that all of you would be in favor of denying first graders now the right to ever get a college education in the ''future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

I’m trying to understand how you could possibly think this is acceptable and rational.

Please explain why you’re for this.''

Because first graders are actual people, unlike foetuses, you know, having a functionning brin and all that.

And...
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/153699-exposing-the-pla…

Not to nitpick. But since there's actually no such thing as the right to a college education, neither first-graders nor anybody else can be denied it anyway.

And…

There's really no need for you to reinforce your run-of-the-mill instantiation of cowardly evasiveness.

I mean, if you're that unreflective, what you really have on offer is the squandering of everybody's time. In other words, a "Freddy Got Fingered" impersonation of Bengt Ekerot.

Not to nitpick. But since there’s actually no such thing as the right to a college an education....

Rodriguez'd.

I've seen people who oppose abortion go on about whatever wars they want to fight and the people they want to bomb. It's not about a moral aversion to killing, it's about having a platform that almost looks Biblical that doesn't require spending tax money on "undesirables".

^ Eh, I failed to close the <del> once again:

Not to nitpick. But since there’s actually no such thing as the right to a college an education….

Gray Falcon,
George Carlin had a little something to say about that.

George Carlin had a little something to say about that.

As did the Fugs. Then again, Tuli's version of the Decalogue focused on coveting "thy neighbor's ass," which – broadly speaking – represents another sad example of the cravenly nature of S.N.'s very being.

Of course, assessing the workings and fuel source of the thing atop S.N. (putative) neck* is tantamount to directly accessing the Mysterium Tremendum:**

Thanks for this snippet of honesty, Ethan. It seems to be a significant proviso.
Obviously, we do NOT KNOW how stars work. Otherwise, why add that condition?

* Hey, maybe Bill Schmalfeldt will show up.
** As it were; S.N. has the Player's Guide. Oh, wait, right: h[]tp://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2015/07/31/ask-ethan-99-how-do-we-know-the-age-of-the-universe-synopsis/#comment-563613

Regarding the multiple attacks on AH for his analogy in #347, just one thought:

Unlike the Catholic Church with the sexual abuse scandal (and the equal or greater scandal in other religions, in homes, and in the public schools),
Planned Parenthood is PROUD of ITS scandal (i.e. abortions) and lobbies publicly and furiously for protections to continue its scandalous activity.

I wouldn't call them attacks, and once again - it's not our side equating Planned Parenthood with paedophilia. Which I do call an attack.

"Just like appendectomies or cancer treatments.
Babies as disease."

See Noevo:

The thing is, you're speaking in defense of a group that sees babies as a punishment. It's written into the bible. Pregnancy is described as a curse on all women as a result of Eve eating an apple.

PP spends much more of their resources helping women get access to birth control, allowing them to avoid ever becoming pregnant in the first place. You've been told this repeatedly, you know this by now. If you really gave a damn about what you characterize as babies you might be moved by the movement to allow women to choose to only carry them if they want them. But you are not. Because to you, babies are really a punishment for having sex. You've been told that the best way to reduce abortion rates is to reduce the rates of unwanted pregnancies, but instead you're working to increase the rate of unwanted pregnancies. How else am I supposed to judge your actions?

See Noevo, May God Bless you. Peace.

To ann #460:

“Not to nitpick. But since there’s actually no such thing as the right to a college education, neither first-graders nor anybody else can be denied it anyway.”

Then don’t nitpick.

Why is it that you, ann, would be in favor of denying first graders now the OPPORTUNITY to ever get a college education in the future just because they can’t handle a college curriculum now?

Same question to the rest of you.

I'll answer your question See, if you answer one for me. Would it have been better for babies to have been stillborn from another rubella outbreak, rather than using a fetus to develop a vaccine?

@#470 --

I haven't made that argument. Nor have I made the argument to which you consider it analogous. I wasn't involved in that part of the thread. .

Nobody is obligated to defend a position they haven't taken. Or to renounce it. This is not a Stalinist regime.

And yet, you addressed the question to me by name, as if I were the leading proponent for that argument.

It's almost like you're targeting me for the X-ness of my chromosomes rather than the content of my posts.

By the way, I do have a response to your question, See. It's a false analogy, and therefore irrelevant. I suggest you learn basic logic before coming back here.

Further to #470 --

I mean, come on. First, you unilaterally declare that something is murder. Then you come up with a clumsy analogy to it. And then you begin asking people why they favor murder, as defined by you, when they haven't done anything besides make factually accurate statements about the annual report of a non-profit that you also believe to be guilty of murder.

In what part of the grand, patriotic American tradition is it A-OK to require people to defend themselves against accusations of crimes-because-you-say-so without any basis or evidence?

It's a when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife question. Address what I've actually said.

Thanks.

Narad @310

ust by the by, your assignment of mutual culpability to Yishai Schlissel’s most recent stabbing victims was a fantastically minimalist self-portrait.ust by the by, your assignment of mutual culpability to Yishai Schlissel’s most recent stabbing victims was a fantastically minimalist self-portrait.

A sixteen year old girl has now died of her injuries from this act of faith. I am sure SN considers this a double of bonus given his misogyny and homophobia.

"Something something bearing false witness something or other."

And I see AH still hasn't provided any evidence to support their claims. Not surprised, really.

Todd, I think most pro choice people believe they are doing what is right and compassionate. I used to be pro choice myself. I know you dislike the evidence I've given, but it is real.
I don't dislike people who are pro choice I just strongly disagree. Peace

AH and SN: can you please tell us why you feel you have the right to interfere with other people's lives regarding a legal act? We understand your religious beliefs are against it. But why are you trying to force others to live by YOUR beliefs?

MI Dawn #478,
We already force people to live by our religious and moral beliefs. That is why murder, rape, theft, arson etc is wrong and punishable. If you kill someone, you go to jail. That is forcing religious/moral beliefs on someone. If abortion is murder (a point where I am undecided) then it is absolutely right to try to force people to stop doing it.

Nobody has the right to set up arbitrary criteria about whose lives are valuable. I've heard from commentors on this site that human life can only be human life if the baby can breathe on its own, or if it is a certain age, or if it can feel pain, or if it is out of the womb. Why do some people think they get to establish who is a human being and who is not? Why should some people get to decide who lives and who dies? Who is valuable and who doesn't count? Who is too inconvenient?

#477

I used to be pro choice myself.

And this person used to be anti-abortion:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-i…

I find her thinking much more compelling than anything you or See has offered.

AH: " I know you dislike the evidence I’ve given, but it is real."

Oh, really? So where is the denominator for the numbers you used in Comment #415 to "prove" your "Over 90% of their “pregnancy related services” end in abortion" statement?

Also where is the evidence that the deity you follow exists? It only makes sense that if you want the laws of this country to conform to your deity's desire, then you must at least give solid scientific evidence that this entity exists, and provide direct two-way communication between the US Congress that can be recorded now, and not unverified writings that date back almost two thousand years.

Edmundo: "That is forcing religious/moral beliefs on someone."

Not really. Morality and fair play do not need to be based on religion. It can be argued it is more attributed to common sense rules to have a successful society.

Why do some people think they get to establish who is a human being and who is not?

But...isn't that exactly what you're trying to do? The good thing about being pro-choice is that it allows each woman to decide for herself.

Chris, get PP annual report. Also see the link to former PP clinic director's article. Why do you get to decide that certain babies can be killed? Aren't you imposing your morality on them? W

Adam, every human life is a human life. I rule nobody out. Letting women decide for themselves who is a human being and who is not, makes no sense. It isn't relative.

Adam, every human life is a human life.

According to your beliefs. But as Americans we are not required to ascribe to your beliefs, just as you are not required to ascribe to mine.

Why do some people think they get to establish who is a human being and who is not?

That's what you've been doing.

You see "human being" from the moment of conception and others don't.

Attempting to criminalize abortion while also removing access to birth control for women, or at least "low income" women, is patently insane ... but of course many in the anti-abortion movement can't see this or comprehend why it is so.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012/01/correlation-between-abortion…

Chris #483
That is actually what I was referring to when I used the slash. I do not murder, among other reasons, because the bible tells me not to. You do not murder because of your moral belief, which may not come from religion. I thought a slash meant and/or. Sorry for the confusion. What I said still stands, we (christians/athiests) enforce our religious and/or moral beliefs on people all of the time, and in many cases have every right to do so.

DGR, all human beings are human beings. You don't get to decide to rule some human beings out based on your own criteria and then say it's fine to kill them. You are imposing your beliefs on an entire class of human beings. And you are trying to make me complicit by having me accept it.

AH: "Chris, get PP annual report. Also see the link to former PP clinic director’s article."

No, you made the 90% claim, therefore you need to provide the evidence to support it. I did read about the PP numbers this morning, and you "90%" bit was not in it. So you are now required to back up that claim.

AH: "Letting women decide for themselves who is a human being and who is not, makes no sense."

Obviously, because according to your deity women are not capable of making decisions on their own. So if you want us to subscribe to your deity's rules prove that he/she exists.

Edmundo: "I do not murder, among other reasons, because the bible tells me not to."

More often than not it comes down to an economic issue. One reason a ruler of a fiefdom would frown on murders is that it cuts back on his working force. More than once I have seen dramatizations (like fantasy, Westerns, scifi, and even "historical" programs like Vikings) where someone has killed a person, and then finds they needed that person's skill. Usually as an ironic "oops" moment.

The most potent example of the economic cost of human death was with the native peoples of the Americas. Disease was not completely responsible for the 95% drop in their population over two centuries. The problem was that is was not just children who came down with measles, smallpox, etc, but the adults. When the adults were unable to farm, hunt, make shelter, clothing, etc then entire families died, and then almost entire civilizations.

AH: " You are imposing your beliefs on an entire class of human beings."

So who is telling you to get an abortion whether or not you need one?

Except you imposing very specific rules to half of the population, women. Your deity's rules against contraception and abortion put an undue economic strain on women. By taking away control over their bodies you are forcing them to have babies they do not want and may not be able to afford to care for.

So, really, if you want to place those rules, you need to prove your particular deity actually exists. Until then we will continue to assure women are allowed to think for themselves.

Chris if you read the article link you'll see what I'm referring to.
Why do you get to impose your arbitrary criteria on me? I don't have to accept the murder of some human beings. I don't have to accept your arbitrary morality. and I dont.

Why do you get to impose your arbitrary criteria on everyone else?

Chris, what proof would be good enough for you? You are imposing an arbitrary rule that says it's ok to kill some human beings.

AH: Were you crucified for my sins?

Adam you are accepting an arbitrary rule that says it's ok to kill certain human beings.

Gray, you're going to have to try and make sense.

Edmundo, I just remembered a better example of the economic incentive to not kill (and sorry if this is a Godwin): the Nazi use of slave labor.

It is not really productive to starve and kill your labor force who are manufacturing weapons and medical supplies. This was very well explained in The Fantastic Laboratory of Dr. Weigl: How Two Brave Scientists Battled Typhus and Sabotaged the Nazis by Arthur Allen. Some Polish prisoners did make a good typhus vaccine, except they secretly vaccinated each other and sent defective vaccines to the Nazi military forces.

It is a very good read.

you are accepting an arbitrary rule that says it’s ok to kill certain human beings.

Is masturbation murder, AH? If not, then your rule is just as arbitrary.