Abortion Trade Off/Compromise

[Seymour Flops]

I suspect that if cryonics ever becomes anything but a scam, the companies that run it will have all sorts of waivers holding them blameless if you die from freezerburn.

Which has nothing to do with what I said. If it comes a time when people can indeed be frozen after birth, according to you that means that no human being is actually a living human being.

And, of course, children or adults could be frozen. The difference between them and embryos, is that we would not be able to revive them. Not with current technology. Of course the word revive means bring back to life. Because a 40-year-old or a healthy embryo is alive before you freeze it.

The point is, you can't freeze someone who is actually alive. The freezing stops the process.

An Embryo isn't alive, therefore it can be frozen.

That is absurd! If the embryo isn't alive, why would it even need to be frozen? Just put it in a box and put it on the shelf, right?. Non-living matter doesn't deteriorate by processes that are stopped by freezing.

 

[JoeB131]

Which has nothing to do with what I said. If it comes a time when people can indeed be frozen after birth, according to you that means that no human being is actually a living human being.

But that's the point, you can't freeze an adult or a child without killing them. The problem is that the cells would be disrupted by the freezing process. It's why meat that's been frozen doesn't task as good as fresh.

And, of course, children or adults could be frozen. The difference between them and embryos, is that we would not be able to revive them. Not with current technology. Of course the word revive means bring back to life. Because a 40-year-old or a healthy embryo is alive before you freeze it.

Except you don't have to revive a frozen embryo, just defrost it.

Because Embryoes aren't people.

 

[Seymour Flops]

But that's the point, you can't freeze an adult or a child without killing them. The problem is that the cells would be disrupted by the freezing process. It's why meat that's been frozen doesn't task as good as fresh.

You can't just freeze an embryo without killing him or her. You have an . . . unsophisticated idea of how the cryogenic process works for embryonic people. They don't just drop them into a petri dish and pop them in the freezer.

How do embryos survive the freezing process?

Scientific American is the essential guide to the most awe-inspiring advances in science and technology, explaining how they change our understanding of the world and shape our lives.

www.scientificamerican.com

Which brings us to egg, embryo or sperm freezing. The most advanced embryo that we freeze is between 100 to 120 cells, which is known as a blastocyst. It is around 120 microns, or about a tenth of a millimeter, in size so it is very conducive to freezing and using cryoprotectants. Cryoprotectants are basically antifreeze that we add to the solutions in which the cells are being frozen in to protect them from membrane damage and ice crystal damage. They are designed to both permeate the cells, meaning to get inside the cell, and to displace water to prevent intracellular ice crystal formation. They have a second function of stabilizing the membrane and protecting it from damage during cryopreservation. And thirdly, they provide a "hyper-osmotic" environment that helps the process of dehydration, which draws the water out of the cells. This process is accomplished by using cryoprotectants composed of typically large sugar molecules that make a more concentrated solution around the cells, which by osmosis and diffusion causes water to move out. Simultaneously, cryoprotectants that are made up of smaller molecules such as ethylene glycol or glycerol are able to permeate the cell so it doesn't shrink up like a raisin. Instead it can maintain its three dimensional structure to a degree but not be filled with water. Because our cells are made up of mostly water, if we dehydrated them to the point of having no fluid, they would be damaged by so-called solution effects, which result from the cell being too concentrated and not having its water replaced by some other compound.

Dehydration is one of the key steps in cryopreservation. It is important to keep in mind that why this process is so successful for embryos and sperm is because of their size and their relative low number of cells. A liver or kidney has billions of cells and a large three dimensional structure. A tenth of a millimeter is relatively small, in contrast, although it's still big on a microscopic level.

There is an emerging technology called vitrification that differs from the traditional slow cooling or slow freezing cryopreservation. The traditional method requires the sequential addition of cryoprotectants over a series of 10 to 20 minutes and then an approximately two hour process that cools the cells at about 0.3 to two degrees a minute down to -196 degrees Celsius, which is the temperature of liquid nitrogen. The reason the cooling is done slowly is to allow the permeation of the cryoprotectants and the appropriate dehydration of the cells to occur in a manner so that no intracellular ice crystals form.

Except you don't have to revive a frozen embryo, just defrost it.

Because Embryoes aren't people.

No.

You don't just pop it out of the freezer and let it sit under cold running water for a couple of hours or use the defrost feature of your microwave.

SA: How are the embryos treated prior to use or implantation?

It's basically the reverse process. The key factors that must be achieved on thawing are rehydration of the cell without blowing it up. We warm them in air and in a water bath instead of in a machine and the warming rate is less precise and much faster than the cooling rate. Embryos are moved through a number of steps to slowly dilute out the cryoprotectants that were added when they were frozen. It's a stepwise dilution of the cryoprotectant as the cells are warmed first to room temperature and then to body temperature. They are then basically allowed to rest and are usually implanted within two to four hours of reaching body temperature.

 

[JoeB131]

You can't just freeze an embryo without killing him or her. You have an . . . unsophisticated idea of how the cryogenic process works for embryonic people. They don't just drop them into a petri dish and pop them in the freezer.

Yawn, you can freeze an embryo because it isn't a person.
You can't freeze a person.

Glad we've established that Embryos aren't people. Because if they were, we have 400,000 frozen ones, more than most countries have in prison.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

In my proposed compromise with leftist baby killers, agreed to as a way to save as many babies as possible, killing a baby before brain wave activity would not be a crime.

{ nfbw #465 to rflops #458 } You will not save any babies from being killed if there is no crime before brain wave activity that starts in the seventh month. Ninety three percent of abortions occur in the first trimester long before fetal brain wave activity begins,

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The USSC says they do,
They said it under Roe, and they said it under Dobbs.

nfbw #430 to shvvtr #427 “STATES have no constitutional right to use the government to force mandatory gestation on a woman against her will.”

{ shvvtr #432 to nf #430 } The USSC says they do, They said it under Roe, and they said it under Dobbs.

{ nfbw #466 to shvvtr #432 } No the states can restrict a woman’s access to a safe abortion if she lives in a state that is governed by a white extremist Christian majority, but those states cannot prevent a woman from traveling to a free state where her right to an abortion is protected.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

killing a baby before brain wave activity would not be a crime.

{ rflops #38 to joeb:1 #34 “Not every law restricting abortion states that the "fetus," is a human being, though that is a scientific fact.”

{ rflops #458 to nfbw #457 You can let the perfect be the enemy of the good if you choose. But your choice will prevent the saving of many babies whose brain waves have started and will feel the pain of the killing.

{ nfbw #467 to rflops #458 } When you stated “killing a baby before brain wave activity would not be a crime.” are you making the scientific distinction based on the moment brain wave activity begins to be the biological moment that separates the fetus’s “right to life” therefore abrogating the woman’s right to terminate the fetus because a fetus becomes a human being with detectable brain waves by scientific method at that approximate day or week of gestational development?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"Pro-choice," and "pro-life" are terms used because pro-choice people do not want to be called "pro-abortion," which is what they are.

{ nfbw #468 to rflops #16 } It is more honest and accurate to admit that pro.choice on abortion is a common law and constitutional assertion that as a matter of workaday public policy insisting that a law abiding woman must not be coerced by any state or the federal government to be in a harmful condition of forced gestation until birth from the moment of conception and before potential viability. Those who recognize and value a woman’s choice is a private matter do not necessarily see that choice being morally and intellectually a solution to unwanted or unintended pregnancy as they go about their normal law abiding lives.

More than half of all Catholics are pro/choice but never promote aborting one of God’s creations whenever they are personally involved as a means of birth control.

 

[M14 Shooter]

{ nfbw #466 to shvvtr #432 } No the states can restrict a woman’s access to a safe abortion ....

Period.
43 states have some sort of ban on abortion - including deep-blue states like CA HI IL NY RI MA CT and MD
You know - states with liberal Democrat super-majorities in their legislatures.

An Overview of Abortion Laws

www.guttmacher.org

 

[CowboyTed]

I've been thinking a lot over the last several months about the abortion topic and was wondering about a possible compromise. From what I understand, there can be a fairly safe pharmaceutically induced abortion up to about 12 weeks, which is around the time frame that most of Europe accepts abortions. Since miscarriages can happen during those first 12 weeks, not usually requiring a D&C, a pharmaceutically induced abortion wouldn't really be much different than a miscarriage which, unfortunately, happens 10%-20% of the time anyway. I would personally be very opposed to an abortive medical procedure that isn't pharmaceutical at any time unless the mother or the child are having life threatening complications. Rape and incest pregnancies would have to be aborted within that 12 week period. So, that leaves me asking the following main questions to both sides:

1. Directed at the left: If pharmaceutically induced abortions were a legal right during those first 12 weeks, would you accept the fact that after that 12 week period was over women DO NOT have the right to choose anymore and that after that 12 week period the only abortions that could be done are if the woman's life or her child were in danger?

2. Directed at the right: Assuming that my compromise would be enacted and made into law, would you then accept pharmaceutically induced abortions during those first 12 weeks, something that really isn't too much different than miscarriages?

Your compromise is not bad opener...

Would probably go for 15 weeks...

Anytime where the mothers life is at risk including suicide due to extenuating circumstance.

For rape and other sex crimes, I would offer more time due to some of the horrific cases (e.g. serial raped by family member, ...)

In fairness that would close to 99% of the abortions today...

 

[martybegan]

Your compromise is not bad opener...

Would probably go for 15 weeks...

Anytime where the mothers life is at risk including suicide due to extenuating circumstance.

For rape and other sex crimes, I would offer more time due to some of the horrific cases (e.g. serial raped by family member, ...)

In fairness that would close to 99% of the abortions today...

Sorry, but the suicide thing is too arbitrary and impossible to confirm if it's true or just bullshit.

A 15 week limit covers rape and incest and sex crimes.

 

[CowboyTed]

Sorry, but the suicide thing is too arbitrary and impossible to confirm if it's true or just bullshit.

A 15 week limit covers rape and incest and sex crimes.

I understand your concern...

If you have a 16 year old girl pregnant with her uncle's child from when he raped her.

She won't press charges because her family will disown her but she wants an abortion...

She is a serious suicide risk...

But if they psychologist signs it off? Countries have done this before and it is far herder to convince a psychologist than getting on plane to more liberal country..
Ireland and UK years ago..

 

[CowboyTed]

Your compromise is not bad opener...

Would probably go for 15 weeks...

Anytime where the mothers life is at risk including suicide due to extenuating circumstance.

For rape and other sex crimes, I would offer more time due to some of the horrific cases (e.g. serial raped by family member, ...)

In fairness that would close to 99% of the abortions today...

What I would do...

Create a law that will have a referendum of the people for a compromise like above and enshrine the law with a caveat that a vote of the people would be needed to change it...

Do the same for

• Gun Rights
• Death Penalty
• LBGTQ Rights.....

Have a referendum on these every ten years or when polls demand...
So take it out of politicians hands and into the peoples...

In other countries if you asked their opinion on Abortion, a lot would tell you to mind your own business... Their job is to take what the people asked for and implement.

 

[martybegan]

I understand your concern...

If you have a 16 year old girl pregnant with her uncle's child from when he raped her.

She won't press charges because her family will disown her but she wants an abortion...

She is a serious suicide risk...

But if they psychologist signs it off? Countries have done this before and it is far herder to convince a psychologist than getting on plane to more liberal country..
Ireland and UK years ago..

You can eventually find anyone to sign off on things like this.

It's the same issue with laws that just say "health of the mother" and then don't define health and let just one doctor sign off on it.

And you example is a criminal issue, not an abortion issue. Also if you agree with even a 15 week limit you agree that at some point the fetus is just as valuable as the mother, so by then you run into that moral dilemma as well.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What I would do...
Create a law that will have a referendum of the people for a compromise like above and enshrine the law with a caveat that a vote of the people would be needed to change it...

You'll have to amend the constitution, first to create the ability to have a national referendum, and then further to negate the constititional protections involved.

 

[CowboyTed]

You can eventually find anyone to sign off on things like this.

It's the same issue with laws that just say "health of the mother" and then don't define health and let just one doctor sign off on it.

And you example is a criminal issue, not an abortion issue. Also if you agree with even a 15 week limit you agree that at some point the fetus is just as valuable as the mother, so by then you run into that moral dilemma as well.

Marty,

I am making not straight forward. This is a compromise, I personally want to make it more liberal...

We could have a panel of doctors but this sometimes has to be done as an emergency. Other countries have seen mothers die while doctors try and find a lawyer. Again this is a compromise...

on your lastly point, I admitting nothing I just willing to listen and take your concerns and try and agree something that would be a compromise...

I think what can be agreed should be put in front of a US wide referendum... Possibly with preference vote on various options in law... A law before would be created that the out come of the vote would become law...
Good old fashioned will of the people...

 

[CowboyTed]

You'll have to amend the constitution, first to create the ability to have a national referendum, and then further to negate the constititional protections involved.

Not if Congress just writes a law to follow the referendum result...

Very hard to get a law to pass that deliberately contradicts the will of the people... You will get renegades but it looks very bad...
So this is not an national referendum (like in other countries), it is a vote (pretty much like Brexit was in UK)...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not if Congress just writes a law to follow the referendum result...

So, by referndum, you mean a poll.
We already have those.
And it does not address the removal of the constitutional protections

 

[CowboyTed]

So, by referndum, you mean a poll.
We already have those.
And it does not address the removal of the constitutional protections

A national vote... i.e. everyone
It is simple.. IT stops becoming a wedge issue in Washington and is just left to the people every now and again...

It is not changing the constitution (as there is already a mechanism to do that which is one of the most rigid in the world.), it is about leaving certain laws open to the people to vote... It is a bit of direct democracy on social issues..

This kind of puts a certain end to it... Supreme Court would have take a view on going against the wishes of the people in certain cases.. Let it happen and see what can be done..

 

[M14 Shooter]

A national vote... i.e. everyone

The constitution does not allow for a national vote