Planned Parenthood will stop taking reimbursements for fetal tissue.

[churchmouse]

I opened the thread to moderate it.

OK boss.
Open for business.

 

[Libertarian01]

IBT 3rd L

 

[17 squirrel]

Doomed 2 Revisited....













But most likely not by me..

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Don't you mods even talk to each other?

 

[churchmouse]

Don't you mods even talk to each other?

 

[churchmouse]

Don't you mods even talk to each other?

Well, lets just say no more Mr. nice guy.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Don't look at me!

 

[bwframe]

Kudos to Paul, Q and CM! Everything in moderation.
Those guys are working overtime on this discussion. Thank you for your service gents!



[video=youtube;xMaE6toi4mk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMaE6toi4mk[/video]

 

[churchmouse]

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I'd like to see less abortions but they have every right to have one. Im not going to fight for more or less abortions because it isn't my business.

My point was that all of us - no matter what side of the "abortion issue" we are on, should at least agree that less of them happening (via lack of a profit motive for PP) is a step in the right direction. I choose to try to make abortion less NECESSARY/WANTED by working with the youth in my area and heading off the problem before it becomes an issue. Not all reductions happen on the supply side and by government intervention/prohibition one way or the other.

The reduction via PP choosing to end an unpopular profit motive - without government forcing them to - _should_ (I would think...) be welcomed by all sides. Correct me if I'm wrong - but it was an attempt at finding a little agreement and a little common ground...


The overall issue is a bit of a lightning rod - to be kind...

(it was also a minor attempt at steering the discussion back in the general direction of the OP)

 

[Libertarian01]

My point was that all of us - no matter what side of the "abortion issue" we are on, should at least agree that less of them happening (via lack of a profit motive for PP) is a step in the right direction. I choose to try to make abortion less NECESSARY/WANTED by working with the youth in my area and heading off the problem before it becomes an issue. Not all reductions happen on the supply side and by government intervention/prohibition one way or the other.

The reduction via PP choosing to end an unpopular profit motive - without government forcing them to - _should_ (I would think...) be welcomed by all sides. Correct me if I'm wrong - but it was an attempt at finding a little agreement and a little common ground...


The overall issue is a bit of a lightning rod - to be kind...

(it was also a minor attempt at steering the discussion back in the general direction of the OP)

While I would also like to see a reduction in the number of abortions performed I believe that IF they are going to happen THEN the maximum amount of good should come from them. This means the use of fetal tissue for research that can save perhaps millions of lives in the long run. Just like I don't like to see people die in car accidents, but if someone does I hope they are an organ donor who then saves lives with their passing.

As I understand it Planned Parenthood was barred from making a "profit" from the sale of the fetal tissue in the first place. What they were allowed to charge for was an amount that would negate any potential loss from the procedure. This is exactly like Indiana law with butchers being allowed to sell venison that a hunter hasn't picked up. They are only allowed to charge an amount that will balance them from losing money, but not to make a profit.

Years ago I interviewed the top professor at IPFW regarding stem cell research. At that time there were benefits from working with fetal stem cells that absolutely could not be equalized with using adult stem cells - period! The fetal stem cells made some research possible that would otherwise be impossible. Fetal stem cells and tissue have been used for almost 100 years in research. This is nothing new. All that is new is the public awareness of the practice. People with Parkinsons and other diseases appear to have hope from some fetal stem cell treatment regimens. I hope that someday such treatment may be done by other means, but until then as long as abortions are going to be performed I hope that whatever positive outcomes can come from them continue to do so.

Regards,

Doug

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Back on topic then - What else is preventing normal clinics/hospitals from handling the services? What could be done to relieve some of the costs, or would that not be enough? Is some cost out of the question opposed to no cost? Is PP really an un-removable welfare object now?

Still interested in this aspect of it.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Doug -
wrt the need for Fetal Stem Cells: I doubt that the ONLY available source is aborted fetuses. I respect your thinking, and the civil dialogue. That said, I've got to think that there are sources that can avoid the inherent perverse incentive (see below for definition). I don't disagree with stem cell research or anything like that. I just think that we ought to be as careful as possible with the incentive.

To follow up with your example, if I die in a car accident - it could be because I was being a dumbass and engaging in risky behavior, or it could be due to someone outside of my control - a drunk driver or something. Or it could be just crappy luck on my part. In any case, _I can influence the outcome_... The fetus in question has no such choice. It is entirely in the hands of the mother (although one could argue that it could be heavily influenced by others).

To the degree reasonably possible, I'd prefer that those other influences have as little of a perverse economic reason to encourage things one way or the other. (By perverse - I mean "an outside reason not directly related to the welfare of child or mother"). What's in the child or mother's best interest can be debated and I'm sure that it will... that's not where I'm going. But I feel that an outside incentive is inherently biased and not in a good way. The decision (regardless of how you feel about abortion) is a VERY personal one and ought not be unduly influenced by outside factors IMHO.

 

[JTScribe]

I haven't kept up with the research, but hasn't adult stem cell research been more promising than that of fetal cells?

Edit - yup.

The potential of adipose stem cells in regenerative medicine. - PubMed - NCBI

I'm not fat, I'm growing stem cells.

 

[Lowe0]

Still interested in this aspect of it.

Someone already beat me to it. Money. Sure, we could discuss the disconnect between suppliers and consumers of medical care that distorts the pricing power of the free market, but inevitably, the people impacted will be those with virtually no money, who are also those least equipped to provide for a dependent.

 

[Lowe0]

To follow up with your example, if I die in a car accident - it could be because I was being a dumbass and engaging in risky behavior, or it could be due to someone outside of my control - a drunk driver or something. Or it could be just crappy luck on my part. In any case, _I can influence the outcome_... The fetus in question has no such choice. It is entirely in the hands of the mother (although one could argue that it could be heavily influenced by others).

Given this, how is it fair to force children to exist at all? They don't have any say in whether or not they're conceived.

 

[jamil]

IBT 3rd L

 

[Libertarian01]

Doug -
wrt the need for Fetal Stem Cells: I doubt that the ONLY available source is aborted fetuses. I respect your thinking, and the civil dialogue. That said, I've got to think that there are sources that can avoid the inherent perverse incentive (see below for definition). I don't disagree with stem cell research or anything like that. I just think that we ought to be as careful as possible with the incentive.

To follow up with your example, if I die in a car accident - it could be because I was being a dumbass and engaging in risky behavior, or it could be due to someone outside of my control - a drunk driver or something. Or it could be just crappy luck on my part. In any case, _I can influence the outcome_... The fetus in question has no such choice. It is entirely in the hands of the mother (although one could argue that it could be heavily influenced by others).

To the degree reasonably possible, I'd prefer that those other influences have as little of a perverse economic reason to encourage things one way or the other. (By perverse - I mean "an outside reason not directly related to the welfare of child or mother"). What's in the child or mother's best interest can be debated and I'm sure that it will... that's not where I'm going. But I feel that an outside incentive is inherently biased and not in a good way. The decision (regardless of how you feel about abortion) is a VERY personal one and ought not be unduly influenced by outside factors IMHO.

Regarding the use of fetal stem cells for scientific use I don't remember all of the issues covered in my interview. One of the primary points that I DO remember was the unrelenting fact that fetal stem cells are unique and there were NO substitutes for the wide range of versatility that have. While other stem cells from adults could be used in some instances the fetal stem cells had a far greater "elasticity" (for lack of a better word) and thus a far greater scientific value.

If not from abortions, how else would we get fetal stem cells? I am not being snarky, but asking an honest question. About 1 in 6 pregnancies will end in miscarriage, most during the first 12 weeks. However, you can't exactly expect a woman to be prepared to "store" the tissue from a miscarriage, nor would I want her to. The fetal stem cells must be collected in a controlled environment at a chosen time. The only source I see for this is abortion.

However, that does not mean I disagree with you on the idea of encouraging abortions for stem cell collection. I do not want to encourage abortions either, for any reason.

Regarding the car accident, who says you're the only one who dies in it chief? What if you also take out a family of four? You have mommy, daddy, 5 year olde little Tommy, and 10 month olde Jessica? Presuming the adults in that car were both organ donors and would want their children to be organ donors too, should we not harvest their organs as well? We didn't want them to die, but the reality is they had no choice in the matter due to you losing control on the ice and they are dead no matter what. Shouldn't some good for possibly 20 or more other families needing organs get some due to your horrible accident, or do we deny the harvesting because we didn't want you and the other family to die in the first place? In this scenario you have created potential access to five (5) hearts, five (5) livers, ten (10) kidneys, and ten (10) lungs. There are thirty (30) transplants right there, not counting eyes and a host of other tissue. We don't want to encourage car accidents but when they happen it is good when lives can be saved due to them.

I believe it was C Everett Coop who said something to the effect of, "The problem isn't abortions. The problem is unwanted pregnancies. When we stop having unwanted pregnancies we won't have an abortion issue." This IS much of what Planned Parenthood does. Yes, Planned Parenthood does perform abortions, but it also provides sex education and contraceptives to many more people than it does abortions. This is a very positive benefit from Planned Parenthood in my opinion.

Some might say others could do this as well, but so what? We could just as easily say other organizations could do what the NRA does, but they don't. Only the NRA has the size and power to have a massive impact on national gun control debates. I am NOT supporting the NRA by this. I only acknowledge the reality that GOA and 2A Foundation simply do NOT have the size and power of the NRA. The NRA is the powerhouse of anti-guncontrol in America. I also acknowledge that Planned Parenthood is the very large powerhouse of helping people with sex education and contraceptives in that realm of need.

I also agree with you that abortion is a very personal decision. That is why I believe it should be between the woman, whomever else she wants to include, and NO ONE ELSE!

Regards,

Doug

 

[steveh_131]

Some might say others could do this as well, but so what? We could just as easily say other organizations could do what the NRA does, but they don't. Only the NRA has the size and power to have a massive impact on national gun control debates. I am NOT supporting the NRA by this. I only acknowledge the reality that GOA and 2A Foundation simply do NOT have the size and power of the NRA. The NRA is the powerhouse of anti-guncontrol in America. I also acknowledge that Planned Parenthood is the very large powerhouse of helping people with sex education and contraceptives in that realm of need.

The NRA does not receive Government funding for these activities. As a libertarian, I would think that you would understand this important distinction.

Nobody here is suggesting that organizations such as PP should not exist to provide sex education and birth control, as far as I know. They are suggesting that the government should not be funding it.

 

[indiucky]

Given this, how is it fair to force children to exist at all? They don't have any say in whether or not they're conceived.

Whoever told you life was in any way "fair" sold you a bill of goods...

However, if you survey a random sample of people and give them the option of whether they like being alive, dead, or never born at all...I would think the "alive" answer would win by a large margin...I am sure even Goth kids, who revel in angst, when given a choice between the three would say "alive"....