PP - injecting minced baby brains into mice, growing fetuses outside wombs, etc.

I better not mention that "Vaccines for hepatitis A, German measles, chickenpox and rabies, for example, were developed using cell lines grown from tissue from two elective abortion's".

OMG some of you may explode now abortion helped make vaccines lol.
Including the polio vaccine.

www.usnews.com...

The facts are that they have been using fetal tissue for years it isn't anything new but It has advanced medical science.
It is saving people who need help now.

a reply to: boymonkey74

just remember it's all about saving the preborn. Who cares about the sick and disabled people who are here now?

a reply to: Cheddarhead

Just been reading about Parkinsons and how fetal tissue may give hope to many folk.

hsci.harvard.edu...

the funny thing is these same people that are crying over what is happening to these 'babies' will be the first to line up for the medical treatment created by these practices should they need it.

a reply to: Mugly

Worth a thread in its own right isn't it? I'm tired take the reigns Mugly .

a reply to: Mugly

not to mention they usually seem to have no problem killing people due pollution, mindless wars, guns....I'm, sure there's a savagely cutting graphic circulating somewhere that makes the point - can't find it just now.....

Edit to add - this one isn't pretty - but it makes a point:

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Mugly

Worth a thread in its own right isn't it? I'm tired take the reigns Mugly

.

i dont think i have the energy right now monkey. i think i am gonna veg and watch ray donovan tonight.
these debates never change anything.

i browsed the thread and people are talking about mice people and #.
it is hilarious.

this is the reality of modern medicine. has been for a long time.
100 years ago practices were crude and they developed into the methods we have today.

in 100 years from now these practices will seem crude but they are necessary.

people need to get over it.

it would also be awesome if all these bleeding hearts put this much effort into caring and advocating for all the millions of people that are alive right now.
theyre more worried about a friggin fetus than they are anything else.
i think that is disgusting.

hopefully some amazing treatment is found with these methods for some terrible disease.
then let all these people make their decision to take the treatment should they need it.
bet you 100 out of 100 of them take the medicine every time.

it will be fine then.
not now though. on the message board behind their avatar they are morally superior. high and mighty.
bleh

a reply to: boymonkey74

I;m glad to hear of a promising treatment. I knew someone who developed Parkinson's and saw him go from an older but still active man to wheelchair bound, helpless and hallucinating. His wife gave her all to care for him until she just couldn't any longer and had to have outside help. I work for a meals program the serves elderly & handicapped individuals. I see family dealing with parents and grandparents who have dementia and other diseases and their devastation as they decline in health and cognitive ability. Like it or not abortion is a reality, whether it's legal or not and it always has been. I'm stunned to see the videos that appear to show the brokering of fetal remains, and the focus on just one organization that provides that service (and it's just a tiny percentage of the services provided). They aren't the sole provider, but the one most accessible to lower income women.

www.addictinginfo.org...

fetal tissue from abortions, with the woman’s consent, is being legally provided for medical research — research that has contributed to medical advances, making life a little more livable for millions of people around the world

The National Institutes of Health spent $76 million on research using fetal tissue in 2014, records show, with plans to spend roughly the same amount this year and in 2016.”

“Nearly $1 million last year went to Trellis Bioscience, a private company, to fund work on medicine treating Cytomegalovirus, which causes enlarged spleens and seizures in newborns. About $875,000 funded HIV research at Massachusetts General Hospital and $386,000 funded work on neuro-developmental disorders at Stanford University

Likely one of the most significant advances provided to us through the use of fetal tissue is the polio vaccine. CNN points out that scientists used fetal kidney cells to create the very first polio vaccine. While the current vaccine, which saves an estimated 550,000 lives globally each year, is no longer created using fetal tissue – that work only built upon science made available through fetal tissue. As noted by the Associated Press, Dr. Frederick C. Robbins, Dr. John Enders, and Dr. Thomas Weller received the 1954 Nobel Prize in medicine for their work which lead to the development of the modern day polio vaccine by Dr. Jonas Salk.

Other vaccines created through the use of tissues obtained in abortions are the Chicken Pox, Rubella and Shingles vaccines. The tissues used in these developments were acquired from two elective abortions performed in the 1960s.

In addition to vaccines, research using fetal tissue has advanced science for diseases like Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, Huntington’s disease, AIDS, muscular dystrophy, herpes, blindness and even some pre-natal testing.

these practices are nothing new.
people are just ill informed.

a reply to: Mugly

ya, and be lucky enough to be able to afford it!!!

although I bet the companies doing the research are also getting gov't grants and well, many of the people paying the taxes for these grants won't be able to afford the treatments that they come up with!!

originally posted by: grandmakdw

Who needs them,
most of you seem to think
society would be much better
off without those bothersome
ethics.

The ethics that you are referring to, yes. Ethics based on preconceived notions of good and evil, yes and religious ideologies, yes.

Ethics and morals derived from nature and the world around us - no, those we need.

Thank you for clarifying for me what I suspected about the ethics
and moral stance of pro-abortionists (pro-choice)
You said exactly what I have observed, that the pro-choice
people feel ethics are outdated,

Whoa, steady on, cowboy. Don't lump society with MY opinion -- I don't speak for the masses, this is MY opinion and does NOT reflect other pro-choice/pro-abortionists.

I hope when you get old that society won't have decided
that if you are over 65 and need surgery, it is against
societies benefit to give you the surgery or treatment.

It's not if I'm paying for it. I have private health care - I pay for my treatment, which is fantastic. Why would it not be in society's best interest? I'm contributing to our economy.

That this becomes the societal standard and the ethics
of the day. Because by the time you are old, society
will be forced to pay back all the borrowed money and
debt and will be like Greece and have to make severe
cutbacks and make hard choices about what a country
can and can not afford.

Greece? I live in the UK, not Greece. Not a debt-ridden EU country. (of course we have debt but the pound is one of the strongest currencies so i'm not worried about our financial collapse -- we keep the EU afloat )

Society at the point will not be able to afford to care
for societies non-working or contributing members,
it is coming.

I don't think so. As I said, I pay for private health care (well my company does and it's very very good) and I have an excellent pension that both my company and I pay into. My wife is paid well too -- money for us won't be an issue. And the scientific research being performed thanks to the aborted fetuses you feel so strongly about will help advance our knowledge of medicine to the point where in the future, we will have cheap and efficient remedies to common illnesses. Cheers, 13-26 week old fetsuses

Once single payer in entrenched, then the government
will decide who gets treatment and who does not,
and trust me when you are old, it won't be you.

No i do not trust you and no, that won't happen. Sounds very much like you're believing the American "socialist" propaganda regarding European health care

There are many in congress who would like to
do away with treatment or surgery for anyone who
is old and doesn't contribute to society. That is rapidly
becoming the other end of life value,
which we place on the 24+ week old infant of today.

Ethics and morality shift rapidly and wildly,
it was ethical in the eyes of the National Socialists
to euthanize people they felt were detrimental
to their society and to make society better.

And you prove my point -- FUD.

a reply to: dawnstar

Gonna make a thread then.

originally posted by: fixitwcw
a reply to: Gryphon66
well, i will take your word for it then. we all know you can't prove it.
but sincerely...... if i was wrong, i apologize for the lapse in my insight.

but i still wish you to dispute me in a logical manner on the other points.

please?

In rough order of your presentation:

As I understand it, when a woman has an abortion through PP or an affiliate, she has the option to donate her fetal tissue for scientific/medical research. When that donation is made, basically the person has no further influence on what and how those tissues are used (and I would imagine, no interest aside from feeling that they might be helping someone.)

Your exception to my use of the word "spirit" (in quotes) is your own perception as I didn't make a single claim about you and religion, and I fail to see how what I said qualifies as "logically invalid ad hominem reverse "argument from authority" (in further point of fact, that phrase has little actual meaning ... you've gathered together a group of words.)

I'm not a woman who has had an abortion; I'm a gay man who believes in the rights of women to the ownership of their own bodies, so ... swing and a miss on that one.

There is a vast difference between reasonable laws applied equitably and injustice and abuse. You seemed to be saying (since you repeated it twice) that anyone who believes in laws that actually help protect people (like say, Roe v. Wade) is somehow a sycophantic worshiper of the state. This is far from accurate.

I did not and still have no idea of what you're referring to with "state recording laws" ... please qualify if are still interested in an answer.

I don't worship the law (or science) for that matter, so I can't oblige you with an explanation for your mistaken beliefs.

I only scanned the thread, what I read seemed to be the usual back and forth regarding this subject.
So if someone brought up this point in some page prior, I guess I'm just adding to it.
There are more than two sides to this - right to choose, right to life, and sick of hearing about it. I'm in the 3rd.
I am personally against abortion - Meaning I would not choose to abort if given the choice.
I have not ever had to make that choice, and don't foresee myself making a mistake that forces the choice upon me.
But, I guess accidents happen....and I would not choose to abort. It may not be my choice in the matter(since 2 are involved)...but that's where I stand. Life most definitely begins at conception.

BUT I really don't care what other people do, and I really don't want to hear about it every four years either. And no matter what crazy Mike Huckabee says, even on the remote chance he gets elected, things ain't changing anytime soon.

Although I don't want to hear about it, it's kind of hard to avoid this story since it's invading all outlets.
I really wish it could just be settled to everyone's satisfaction once and for all.

I haven't watched any of the videos, and I'm not going to either.

I get that PP don't seem to have the proper reverence for human life or remains. The videos are terrible. If they are profiting from this, they need to be abolished, disbanded or whatever the term. But, something would have to take its place if we are to be realistic.

I do not have a problem with the material, from an already doomed human being (that's what it is) going to research. At cost of course. Because, before this thread even came up, I realized there is another human being at the other end of the transaction.

I remarked to a friend of mine about a week ago that eventually, inevitably we will have the advanced medical capability to actually remove the unborn and allow he/she to develop to term outside of the mother that does not want it. Or is unable to carry to term. And then, abortion will no longer be necessary.

And holy cow, what does it say in the title of this thread? They are working on the very thing that I thought was many years down the road. I know there are ethical implications, and of course there will be "elective" removal, and pre-birth adoption. All the twisted uses imaginable, and probably some we can't imagine.

But, like I said, it's inevitable. So we will have to deal with those issues anyway.

Is the research worth it? So that someday abortion will be unnecessary, a thing of the past? If accelerated, wouldn't the research prevent more death than any legal effort to drive the practice underground? Wouldn't it be easier than flipping the whole damn Supreme Court around?

The Legend, I don't have any thing intelligent to add at the moment just.....

Good Job and Thank You
WIS

a reply to: Gryphon66

why do people think that the woman should have any say so or any information at all really on the fetal tissue that she chose to donate?
i dont get it.

why the hell not get some medical benefits from the tissue. the possibility to make advancements.

people would rather bury the fetus in the dirt. does that make it any less aborted?
they would rather burn it to ash. would that make it any less aborted?
why not make something come of it.
i really am having trouble following this train of thought.

i am still laughing at mice people...people really are friggin stupid.

funny that polio is not very common these days...thank you aborted fetal cells for that.

how many of you that are bitching have had their rubella vaccination? i am betting a lot. mmr has been pretty standard for a long time.
well if you took that shot then you are a mean, evil person that contributed to the fetus never having lived.
its ridiculous

a reply to: Mugly

I absolutely concur. I'm stunned by some of the items I read in the thread.

It's like ... we've left all sense of reason.

Thanks for your thoughts.

a reply to: Gryphon66

As I understand it, when a woman has an abortion through PP or an affiliate, she has the option to donate her fetal tissue for scientific/medical research. When that donation is made, basically the person has no further influence on what and how those tissues are used (and I would imagine, no interest aside from feeling that they might be helping someone.)

well, as i understood it (we are neither a woman so do not have all view points)

SHE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO TURN THE BODY OVER TO THE STATE WITH NO OPTION OF BURIAL!

am i wrong?

nope.

YOU THINK A WOMAN SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO HER DEAD BABYS BODY!!! DON'T YOU?

check out indianas new legislation signed into law requiring burial....... again... why no OPTION for the mother. totalitarianism, plain and simple, just like pp.

google indiana vs planned parenthood

Your exception to my use of the word "spirit" (in quotes) is your own perception as I didn't make a single claim about you and religion, and I fail to see how what I said qualifies as "logically invalid ad hominem reverse "argument from authority" (in further point of fact, that phrase has little actual meaning ... you've gathered together a group of words.)

granted my perception may have been off, the "spirit" is widely associated with christianity, so i doubt i missed the mark.

you proceeded to disagree with my group of words....... presumably because you felt impelled to disagree no matter what, or maybe because you know i was correct.

let me break it down so others can see your tactics.

from wikipedias rational wiki-

*An argument from authority refers to two kinds of logical arguments:

*A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue.

*A logically fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their personal bias, their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues. (Often, this is called an appeal to authority, rather than argument from authority.)

now for ad hominem from same rational wiki

An argumentum ad hominem (from the Latin for "to the person") is a logical fallacy that occurs when one attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. The fallacy is a genetic fallacy -- the source of the argument is almost always irrelevant to its truth. Even if the ad hominem attack is true, that fact has no bearing on whether the disputant's argument is logically sound.

now for the specific REVERSE type of arguing from authority from the same rational wiki

Appeal to no authority

Occasionally, this tactic is reversed by appealing to someone who has no qualification or authority on the subject at hand as if this were somehow a valid argument. This is often seen in politics, where the "average Joe" is seen to have more "common sense" than some pointy-headed intellectual, and in conspiracy theories, where most professionals working in the field are considered partners in the conspiracy or paid off. Another example of this is Airborne, which touts itself as "invented by a schoolteacher."

again, nice try.

I'm not a woman who has had an abortion; I'm a gay man who believes in the rights of women to the ownership of their own bodies, so ... swing and a miss on that one

i already said i would take your word for it in this post on page 6.

a reply to: Gryphon66
well, i will take your word for it then. we all know you can't prove it.
but sincerely...... if i was wrong, i apologize for the lapse in my insight.

but i still wish you to dispute me in a logical manner on the other points.

please?

but again i apologize if i was wrong.

There is a vast difference between reasonable laws applied equitably and injustice and abuse. You seemed to be saying (since you repeated it twice) that anyone who believes in laws that actually help protect people (like say, Roe v. Wade) is somehow a sycophantic worshiper of the state. This is far from accurate.

i agree that there is a difference between reasonable laws (though reasonable is, by definition, at worst ambiguous, at best, relative... you know IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER?) applied to all (you saying that is what we have?) and injustice and abuse. i said those that love, or worship, the law ( as in those who would go out and kill tomorrow if it was legal... or anything else that was wrong... but legal.)

yes, those who use the law as a weapon, and those who support the use there of, are my enemy, and the enemy of every caring human on earth.

I did not and still have no idea of what you're referring to with "state recording laws" ... please qualify if are still interested in an answer.

ok. your post that resulted in this reply, and i quote.

So, someone either agrees with your particular take on things, or they're wrong. I can tell this discussion is really going to go places. Okay, let's imagine that this is actually going on, actually against the law. Let's imagine that these videos were not fraudulently obtained, through deceit, fabrication, what have you. These videos show 4 or 5 individuals DISCUSSING actions. How do you, in your mind, extend that to 700 Planned Parenthood locations and 59 affiliated groups? Guilt by association? Damnation by emotion? Follow up: what do you want to do with fetal tissue ... throw it away? Burn it?

let me pull an excerpt from the middle of your statement

Let's imagine that these videos were not fraudulently obtained, through deceit, fabrication, what have you.

these videos were not fraudulently obatained. the law in texas says i can record you without your knowledge.

you are extremely misguided. and now you look like a fool.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Cremation of the child would be preferable.

Is cremation not being selfish? You, me, and others in this thread are here to discuss this today as a direct result of a concerted push since the 1700's to study dead human beings to gain medical knowledge. There was a time not all too long ago when it wasn't even common knowledge that people had skeletons inside of them that were controlled by muscles because it was considered ghoulish to dissect a human body and obtain that information. Just as doctors did this same thing for our benefit 200 years ago we should do now for the benefit of our grand children.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Ok, Joseph Mengele also thought his research on
live human tissue was worth it because of all of the
cures and advances in medicine it might produce.

Forget Mengele, the Japanese committed 100x the atrocities in the name of medical experimentation (and also, they just wanted to torture people because they were sick f's). After the war we had an option, pardon them all (or severely reduced sentences) in exchange for the medical information, or they would burn it all. We chose to take the deal, and tacitly condone what Japan did to China. It advanced science decades.

Knowledge isn't free, horrible things sometimes have to happen in order to get it. In this case it's reusing human tissue from abortions. In my mind that's pretty tame. It's much better than in the 1800's when organized groups of doctors would go out in the middle of the night and kill poor people so they could get a cadaver to study and learn to treat others.