|
beatlegs posted:Fertility clinics destroy fertilized eggs. Is a fertilized egg still considered an embryo? Maybe I am getting my biology confused.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:I disagree. The videos haven't done much to shift public support of abortion or PP because public support has more or less hardened over the last few decades and PP has been on the defensive against extremists in red states since the 90's. I think the most that this will end up doing is having a bunch of red governors ordering "investigations" or whatever that come to nothing and the issue of abortion being a 2016 hot potato. Public support may not be the biggest factor in whether the movies failed though; if the Republicans in Congress really manage to defund PP through a legislative amendment that's gonna hurt bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
site posted:if the Republicans in Congress really manage to defund PP through a legislative amendment that's gonna hurt bad. They tried to and it failed though. If they couldn't get it to happen in the heat of the moment they are unlikely to accomplish it meaningfully later on. Its an attempt to rile up the base leading into an election and creating a talking point, not meaningful legislation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Is a fertilized egg still considered an embryo? Maybe I am getting my biology confused. If you believe life begins at conception, which is a statement very often touted by pro-lifers, then all of those fertilized eggs are human beings that are murdered.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:They tried to and it failed though. If they couldn't get it to happen in the heat of the moment they are unlikely to accomplish it meaningfully later on. Pretty much. This felt like it was designed from the start to fire up the base, get views for right wing media, give GOP lawmakers a chance to show how much they don't like the idea of selling babies as deli meat, and IF it resulted in loving PP over hey bonus!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:I disagree. The videos haven't done much to shift public support of abortion or PP because public support has more or less hardened over the last few decades and PP has been on the defensive against extremists in red states since the 90's. I think the most that this will end up doing is having a bunch of red governors ordering "investigations" or whatever that come to nothing and the issue of abortion being a 2016 hot potato.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:some of my conservative friends are blowing up on Facebook over this new planned parenthood "SELLING BABY PARTS" thing, why is this news? As a biotech researcher I feel kinda obligated to try and calm down a lot of the crazy that's going around with the PP sting videos. If you wanna reply to their posts please point out several facts here: 1) It's been legal to donate tissue from aborted fetuses for decades. Here is a law from 1993 issuing guidelines for this: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/publiclaw103-43.htm.html 2) In the biomedical field, costs can be freakishly high. Here's a generic, very common protein that's used all the time, streptavidin (we use it to bind proteins to other things): https://www.lifetechnologies.com/order/catalog/product/21122 Note that 0.1 grams of this stuff costs well over 1000$. Many other specialized proteins cost 1000x that much. It's quite normal for my purchases of biological reagents to run 2,000$ or higher, and we're a very small company. When I order this stuff the shipping and handling requires me to overnight it (so the proteins don't spoil in a long transit) and get it with insulated cold packaging (so it can survive the shipping until I can stick it in a -80* C freezer immediately upon receipt). This S&H cost alone is maybe 50 bucks. So when the Planned Parenthood ladies are juggling numbers around 30$ to 100$, it's REALLY obvious that they aren't talking about the cost of the actual fetal tissue specimens. They're talking about minor processing costs. And yes, it is perfectly legal to try to recoup these expenses. Look at that first link I gave you, section 12 subsections a and d3. I keep seeing people up in arms about how they're supposedly "haggling" over the profits they want over illicit goods and pointing out the numbers they're putting forward (generally in the 20-30$ range). This makes about as much sense as saying "Hey I overheard these guys talking about selling a stolen iPhone 6. It's obvious they were selling it because I heard them haggling over whether it'd be 3 or 5 dollars." Those numbers don't make any goddamn sense, so it has to be referring to something other than a for-profit sale. 3) While there are general conventions in surgical procedures, there isn't very much strict standardization and variant approaches occur all the time, often on the fly. In fact, the primary skill of a surgeon isn't hand-eye coordination (this is generally picked up over time, unless you're a klutz), it's the ability to improvise. Because of this, different surgeons can have differing philosophies in how to perform an operation. So when people cry about how the PP staffers are supposedly "changing the procedure to harvest tissue" they're missing out on the fact that it is possible, even necessary sometimes, to modify a procedure within certain boundaries. The primary reason that such a regulation is in place is because an abortion is performed with the patient's best interests in mind, and as such the patient must be the central focus of the procedure. Ethically speaking, you cannot prioritize tissue recovery over the patient's well-being. Ms. Gatter in the second video does discuss a minor variant to the procedure, but it is one that would likely be acceptable in terms of medical ethics since as she herself points out it doesn't cause any discomfort or risk to the mother's health. So long as the mother consents and the surgery is still performed with her well-being as the central goal, there should be nothing wrong with it. ShadowCatboy fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:To be fair to them I think they see a difference between fertilized and unfertilized eggs The IVF process does in fact produce many excess embryos (fertilized eggs) that are frozen and for the most part eventually discarded. So to "be fair" to right to lifers they mostly ignore this even though the destruction of these embryos is entirely equivalent to embryos destroyed by other means such as abortion, yet somehow they are less in arms over IVF embryos. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the people using IVF services are generally from a different social and economic class than those demonized in the abortion debate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:They tried to and it failed though. If they couldn't get it to happen in the heat of the moment they are unlikely to accomplish it meaningfully later on. It died intentionally though. The way they killed it allows the amendment to be brought up again without going through committee, so they can try attaching it to the more important basic government funding CR after Congress comes back from recess (according to USPol).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:They tried to and it failed though. If they couldn't get it to happen in the heat of the moment they are unlikely to accomplish it meaningfully later on. That wasn't a real attempt though and everyone knew it was going to fail. It was just a way for some people to get on record about the issue immediately. The real federal funding fight is going to occur during the next CR battle
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
site posted:It died intentionally though. The way they killed it allows the amendment to be brought up again without going through committee, so they can try attaching it to the more important basic government funding CR after Congress comes back from recess (according to USPol). Because the republican congress holding up the budget to get things they want added to/removed from the spending bill has worked so well in the past. Zwabu posted:The IVF process does in fact produce many excess embryos (fertilized eggs) Ah ok. For some reason I thought embryo was a term for an unfertilized egg and zygote was for a fertilized one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
"Free couch. Will deliver for gas money" "Well then you're selling the couch aren't you?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the people using IVF services are generally from a different social and economic class than those demonized in the abortion debate. Thanks for this. It explains everything very well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:The IVF process does in fact produce many excess embryos (fertilized eggs) that are frozen and for the most part eventually discarded. So to "be fair" to right to lifers they mostly ignore this even though the destruction of these embryos is entirely equivalent to embryos destroyed by other means such as abortion, yet somehow they are less in arms over IVF embryos. The classic thought experiment is "if a fertility clinic is on fire and you have time to save a six year old girl or a refrigerator full of embryos, which do you choose?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:The classic thought experiment is "if a fertility clinic is on fire and you have time to save a six year old girl or a refrigerator full of embryos, which do you choose?" "Yeah sure, I'll get that fridge full of embryos. Just let me just grab a dolly/palette mover here... and my insulated gloves, and I'll need your security car- oh look, it's too late." I get the feeling that anti-choicers think it's like the scene in Jurassic Park; where it's just a shaving cream can full, and you can grab it instantly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:Fertility clinics destroy fertilized eggs. Fertility clinics create life, though. They help people who want to have babies but otherwise can't have babies. At least maybe that's the argument. Fertility clinics create babies, abortion clinics end them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
It really gets to the problem with a lot of rightwing positions. They mistake the simplest definition for the universal one. The second you complicate it, it falls apart. "Embryos are people" Ok, what about embryos that are destroyed at fertility clinics. "You are born a male or female" Ok what about xxy children or children with male genetics but a genital malformation resembling a vagina.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Fertility clinics create life, though. They help people who want to have babies but otherwise can't have babies. There are so many unwanted children out there who will never have a loving home so I could give a nary a gently caress about a small portion of people who can't bring yet more babies into the world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Please keep in mind that CommieGIR and I recently bashed our heads against the wall in this very thread about pro lifers being awful. It's loving everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Fertility clinics create life, though. They help people who want to have babies but otherwise can't have babies. Yeah but if they destroy many times more lives (to concede the "life begins at conception" position for the same of argument) than they create (embryos that go on to actually be born), how is that okay? It's like if the Duggars murdered 17 of their kids. "Well you had two that you let live so that's cool."
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:There are so many unwanted children out there who will never have a loving home so I could give a nary a gently caress about a small portion of people who can't bring yet more babies into the world. When people go to adopt a lot of the time they want a perfect child but children given up for adoption are often from nasty backgrounds, broken homes, or are difficult children to deal with (i.e, disabled). Last I heard adoption is also really hard for whatever reason. A lot of unwanted children are, well, the kind of children parents don't want. There's also the "well I want it to be my child!" going on. If it isn't my genes running around I'm not raising it. Zwabu posted:Yeah but if they destroy many times more lives (to concede the "life begins at conception" position for the same of argument) than they create (embryos that go on to actually be born), how is that okay? It's like if the Duggars murdered 17 of their kids. "Well you had two that you let live so that's cool." The right is not known for its logical consistency.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
That drat Obama is getting criticised for his global warming declarations: http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/04/climate-scientists-rip-apart-epas-global-warming-rule/ The comments are full of people saying this means that global warming isn't happening. Of course, if you read the article, you see he's being criticised because his orders don't go far enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Fertility clinics are easily understandable as at least eggs being broken in pursuit of making an omelette; there might be people who are still opposed to the process but there are plenty of people who are willing to give up a bit of logical consistency (it's overrated anyway) to arrive at a viewpoint that pleases them (babies still being made, etc).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
I don't think dismissing literal murder occurring (per anti-choice advocates) as "making an omelette" is easily understandable, no.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Well, they were OK with it when it was up to Hitler. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
If you're nutty enough to think abortion is the literal murder of a human being, then I don't think you can dismiss IVF as an overall "good thing" notwithstanding the murder of thousands of precious babies. Obviously the anti-abortion zealots are obsessed with the choice women are allowed to freely make, rather than the embryo itself. There's really no other explanation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Fertility clinics are easily understandable as at least eggs being broken in pursuit of making an omelette; there might be people who are still opposed to the process but there are plenty of people who are willing to give up a bit of logical consistency (it's overrated anyway) to arrive at a viewpoint that pleases them (babies still being made, etc). I only wanted one child but had to make sure I liked it, so I had octuplets, waited until they were five, then kept the best one and killed the rest. Hey, can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
There's a good thought experiment I haven't seen recently: You're in a burning building and can rescue either a 4-year old child or a cooler containing a dozen fertilized embryos. Which do you take?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:The videos haven't failed and PP is going to lose this battle, at least marginally. Sure, the foundation isn't going to be completely defunded but funding and public support will erode along the edges. In red states the changes will be much worse than elsewhere, like usual. Agreed. They've already succeeded in framing the narrative in this way. See also: ACORN. Davethulhu posted:There's a good thought experiment I haven't seen recently: About 14 posts up on this page. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Davethulhu posted:There's a good thought experiment I haven't seen recently: So the Trolley problem?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:There are so many unwanted children out there who will never have a loving home so I could give a nary a gently caress about a small portion of people who can't bring yet more babies into the world. Fertility treatments are cheaper than adopting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
ErichZahn posted:Fertility treatments are cheaper than adopting. And who wants to raise someone else's unwanted spawn like a sucker?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So the Trolley problem?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:You can change the number of embryos and most people won't change their minds no matter how many. 10,000? gently caress it, save the kid. The broad insensitivity to numbers makes it quite different from a trolley problem. Right, its basically calling them on their bullshit. If your instinct is to save the girl rather than the tray you are demonstrating that at least subconsciously you understand the difference between a human being and an embryo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 23:36
|
|
Davethulhu posted:There's a good thought experiment I haven't seen recently: You're in a burning building and you can rescue either a 4 year old or an 85 year old. Which one do you take?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Right, its basically calling them on their bullshit. Joke's on you, there are people that unironically would go for the freezer. e: oh poo poo oh poo poo, he's back and wanting some more~~
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:You're in a burning building and you can rescue either a 4 year old or an 85 year old. Which one do you take? that isn't even close to the same situation being provided Phone posted:Joke's on you, there are people that unironically would go for the freezer. At least they are being consistent
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:You're in a burning building and you can rescue either a 4 year old or an 85 year old. Which one do you take?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Davethulhu posted:There's a good thought experiment I haven't seen recently: I've used that one on anti-abortion people for years, "I'm holding a baby in one hand and a dish with a fertilized embryo in the other. I drop them both. Which do you dive for?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
I mean legit if someone believes human life is so precious they protect every fertilized embryo, oppose war, oppose the death penalty, oppose euthanasia, and then also oppose abortion I disagree with them but gently caress it at least they have integrity with their beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 23:50
|
|