h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Slapjack, I am pretty much the same as you say you are... but I would like, if I could, to ask women to think again, and as many times again, before having abortions, unless they have a real medical condition that means pregnancy would really endanger their life or their health. That's it. I don't know what makes you think I am a clinic-picketing, woman harassing loonie! First, I am a woman, second I have children, and relatives who've had abortions and lived to bitterly regret it.

<>

It seems you have very selective hearing, Della. And while you may indeed be 'pro-life' when it comes to topics such as war or the death penalty, when it comes to elective terminations you are definitely 'anti-abortion' as you seem to disregard the life of the woman involved in favour of a potential human.

I find when people say they are personally anti-abortion but pro-choice for others (well, as well as themselves, as their choice would be not to terminate) that this actually clarifies the issue. Where exactly is the hypocricy in such a statement?

I agree with slapjack that the term 'pro-abortion' is a completely nonsensical one. Have you ever met a 'pro-abortionist', Della? Can you prove that they exist? What exactly do you mean by this term?


az

<>

I guess not, Teasswill. I doubt most women would be concerned as to what was done with the foetus afterwards.

I wonder if the foetus needs to be at a certain stage of development before stem cells can be used.


az

You knew I'd turn up, and here I am. And, surprise surprise, the usual ignorance, insults and dishonesty have preceded me.

The classic this time is:

"How many abortions are performed to actually save the woman's life? A minute fraction, I won't give any figures, as certain people will get hung up on that, and screech about statistics til the cows come home."

Translation: I won't give any figures because I have none. I have no idea, in fact, whether what I'm saying is simply some fantasy I just dreamed up myself. I can't be bothered to check, even though I'm sitting in front of the finest and fastest research tool ever invented, so instead I'll just spout something that supports my side and hope nobody points out that I'm a known liar.

Della, in the past when I have, as you so charmingly put it, "screeched about statistics", it's been when you've made an assertion - just like your "minute fraction" assertion - and I've been able to PROVE that you're a liar and that the opposite is true with 30 seconds of googling.

You seem in some way dimly aware that this has happened. You do not, it appears, seem to have learned anything from the experience.

Hey ho.

H.

<>

No, I do not - it's just that I think that the killing of an unborn human is justified only by an actual physical threat to the mother, not just lifestyle or other "reasons" I have heard!
<< What exactly do you mean by this term?>>
I mean people who campaign for abortion (lamost to the exclusion of anything else in their lives) or who profit (usually very greatly) from advocating and performing elective abortions. If abortions are provided by a public hospital system, where there is no chance of coining it, that's another matter. But aborting for the almighty dollar, that's pro-abortion. Simple.

I also feel it incumbent upon me at this point to remind the audience that although Adelaide aka Della aka Annie aka Debbie aka Adele is, she tells us, against the death penalty for murder, she is also, by her own admission here, in favour of the death penalty for people who have been harrassed by her son.

H.

Hoovooloo/Member/Number strikes again - with personal insults and irrelevancies (not to mention lies.) So, sigh, I am outta here! Pity...

Integrity is always relevant in discussions of this type. That you do not consider it so is also relevant, I think. Thank you for demonstrating that.

I can prove all of what I assert above with links within h2g2, so the charge of "lies" is specious.

H.

<>

Which people are these, Della? Campaigning in favour of choice and campaigning in favour of abortion are totally different things. And, I repeat, I have *never* heard of anyone or any group who has promoted abortion. Have you?


az

To get back to the original subject of thr thread, what strikes me is the sort of "climate of fear" that has been established in the US, such that a legitimate university research department feels the need to issuea form of disclaimer for research that clearly offers the possibility of successful treatment for degenerative diseases. Should such a statement really be necessary?

Noggin

Being anti-abortion personally but pro-choice politically is a perfectly consistent position.

Why?

1. Liberalism. Liberals typically do not want to impose their views on others, and while they may have very strong feelings about a particular issue, they don't feel that their view should be imposed through state power on others. This might be because (a) they think their own views are falliable and/or (b) they recognise that there are at least some good arguments for other views and/or (c) they don't believe in an objective morality.

2. Consequences. What would happen if abortion were made illegal? Abortions wouldn't stop, and would be carried out under unsafe conditions by unlicensed practioners without regulation - endangering health and life. The rich could afford to go abroad, the poor would end up playing a form of Russian roulette.

I am wondering whether, once acquired, the stem cells could be grown to create a ready supply?

As for termination, well I've stated my general views on that on several threads and they haven't really changed. In this case you're killing something that cannot think or feel in order to greatly improve people's quality of life. Sure that something is human (indisbutable matter of genetics IMO) and alive, but as Hoo has pointed out many a time, so is a cancerous tumour.

I had assumed, from the rather hysterical pronouncements of the anti-choice, anti-science lobby, that stem cells could not reproduce, and hence we'd need to "harvest" them whenever we needed them from foetuses or wherever.

However, unlike certain other people I could mention, I actually used the wonderful tool at my fingertips (stop sniggering) and did some research. Here's a link: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/faqs.asp

It seems that once a stem cell line is acquired and isolated, it is effectively immortal and can be grown indefinitely in the laboratory without any need for further work involving donated tissue.

So what the pro-ignorance lobby are objecting to is not, in fact, some Huxley-esque nightmare of endless harvesting of aborted babies to cure the senility of a few rich beneficiaries. What they're objecting to is very limited, small scale research using already legally aborted fetuses, which will almost inevitably lead to a massive leap forward in the treatment of previously untreatable conditions like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and others.

Also, as Dr. Graham Chapman once said, the problem with transplant surgery is that there aren't enough accidents, and that it's unethical and time consuming to go out and cause them. Stem cell research could render organ donation redundant, as we could simply grow a rejection-proof kidney in a jar for implantation on demand.

I do love the way the people who want to stop all this call themselves, with no apparent sense of irony, "pro-life".

H.

There still appears to be the problem of tissue matching to avoid rejection. So, although as your linked article says, scientists are working to overcome this, I guess that a foetus which is a good match would be preferrable to 'any old stem cells'.

However, as this is still research, hopefully they will overcome the rejection issue by the time they have attained a practical implementation of stem cells.

There's a potential answer to that, too. It is already discovered that blood in the umbilical cord and the placenta are both rich in stem cells. Cord blood banks are already popping up. It is possible that the next generation will be able to have their stem cells stored until needed, when they can be revived and used to grow replacement organs.

The result would be a replacement organ made from the recipient's own DNA. The chance of rejection would be slim.