U.S. Scientists Speak Out About The Need For Fetal Tissue In Research

[aris2chat]

Healthy children are not diseased tumors. These babies were not only killed for their component parts but planned parenthood ghouls are taking orders.

Do you need to be judge and jury for every single case of abortion before you understand why a woman would need or want an abortion? Sorry, but if there is a god, that is the ONLY judge that she should have to justify her decision to and only her, her doctor and/or counselor need to consult.

You really don't seem to understand at all. Your mind is 'close for repair' by the very term abortion without understanding what or why it is done. It is not a simple substitute for birth control. Never was, never will be.
"Oh, lets not use a condom tonight, I'd rather get an abortion in a few weeks"............NOT! You would have to be mental.

Women are not paid for their fetal tissue or have the abortion paid for it they donate. Tissue is donated to make a bad situation just a bit less horrible. A bit like a loved one that is brain dead or soon will be, the family is asked if they will donate organs to save a life. OK, so it is bit ghoulish, but done for really good reason, to save someone else's life. There is no way a woman is going to get pregnant with the intention of having an abortion so they can donate fetal tissue. Some women will intentionally get pregnant and give birth so the infant can become an organ donor for another sibling. Birth for body parts, not for the life of the fetus but for someone else's life.

Crazy is suicide and mass murder by some fanatics of a religion of peace in the name of god. Now that is immoral and illogical.

Abortion is as individual as the women and not treated as simple birth control. Those simpletons that believe it is are the immoral and illogical ones.

 

[Katzndogz]

Abortion started out as a good idea. Over the years it has become just as twisted as other liberal good ideas.

 

[aris2chat]

Healthy children are not diseased tumors. These babies were not only killed for their component parts but planned parenthood ghouls are taking orders.

You really are living in a bubble. You need to get out more and to read the news more often

More Babies Being Born to Be Donors of Tissue - NYTimes.com
Saviour Siblings as Organ Donors - SLF
http://www.proskauer.com/files/News...3d3-129ac6a5c6c5/compelled-organ-donation.pdf

Just because you are ignorant, you expect others are as well?

 

[Katzndogz]

Healthy children are not diseased tumors. These babies were not only killed for their component parts but planned parenthood ghouls are taking orders.

You really are living in a bubble. You need to get out more and to read the news more often

More Babies Being Born to Be Donors of Tissue - NYTimes.com
Saviour Siblings as Organ Donors - SLF
http://www.proskauer.com/files/News...3d3-129ac6a5c6c5/compelled-organ-donation.pdf

Just because you are ignorant, you expect others are as well?

Are they killing those babies for their organs?

I'm not a believer in organ donation so that dog won't hunt either.

 

[aris2chat]

Even worse is that the dead baby parts are more valuable the more developed they are. The financial incentive is to encourage women to wait (sorry Latoya, we can't schedule your abortion for another 60 days) and make the abortionists even more money.

Actually the opposite. The less developed the cells the more universal they can be. Later cells have developed their own signature. Bit like tough meat vs tender veal. The older the meat the stronger the flavor. Sorry about the meat and abortion analogy, but I'm trying to explain older is not better for some things. I'm sure there are many science journals that have long technical explanation you can check out of a hospital or university library so you can understand more clearly.

If doctors and scientists could get cells right after they begin to divide it would be better. That is why the stem cells, not those already forming organs, are so useful for science and medicine. Now many parents make arrangement to have the stem frozen in case they need it to treat the infant/child late in life. The cells are neutral. Not all would be parents are even aware or ask for the stem to be saved, rather than be tossed in the garbage. Labs are paid good money to preserve the cells till they are needed. Like preserving eggs for implanting at a late date, when the woman is ready to be a mother or for use in a surrogate.

 

[aris2chat]

Healthy children are not diseased tumors. These babies were not only killed for their component parts but planned parenthood ghouls are taking orders.

You really are living in a bubble. You need to get out more and to read the news more often

More Babies Being Born to Be Donors of Tissue - NYTimes.com
Saviour Siblings as Organ Donors - SLF
http://www.proskauer.com/files/News...3d3-129ac6a5c6c5/compelled-organ-donation.pdf

Just because you are ignorant, you expect others are as well?

Are they killing those babies for their organs?

I'm not a believer in organ donation so that dog won't hunt either.

And I have already made arrangement to donate any and all of my body that is of use to science or to save another person(s).

I also recycle to save the environment. Grey water as well. Even put a sink on the top of my toilet tank rather than waste water.

Grow medicinal herbs, make my own tinctures and tea mixes, grow my own fruits in my yard, make my rose water, pick 'weed' greens for salad, donate to ie. salvation army, paperless bills.......... been part of my upbringing and life for as long as I can remember. Don't parents teach these things any more?

Waste not, want not?

Dog Organ Donation Nauset Pet Services
Pig hearts could be transplanted into humans after baboon success - Telegraph
A brief history of cross-species organ transplantation

Animals are used to grow human organs with the persons DNA.

Science is wonderful, lives can be saved. We can even 3D print functioning organs in some cases.
3ders.org - 3D bone printing project in China to enter animal testing stage 3D Printer News 3D Printing News

 

[jknowgood]

Link to what specific cure baby parts has cured.

ebola virus was built on fetal cells. It might be just one stain right now, but it is a fast fantastic start. It might have taken more years just to get the first trial.

I love the way they say baby cells has cured diseases, when they can't name one.

It has help build a vacine that was killing thousands in africa. Now they can protect workers, doctors and local citizens from cntracting

they have developed meds to help ALS. To improve mobility of those wit spinal injuries

They grow skin for burn victims

Cure?? Next best t help patients in the use and prevent a pandemic from spreading in africa is no good enough???

There hasn't been anything good done because of research done by using dead babies. If there is something that's all we would be hearing about. That's how liberals roll.

 

[jknowgood]

If it is dead why not? We have the choice to donate body parts are our drivers license when we die.

They are murdered, leave them alone. They suffered enough.

 

[aris2chat]

If it is dead why not? We have the choice to donate body parts are our drivers license when we die.

They are murdered, leave them alone. They suffered enough.

How is research on tissue making it suffer? It is not living, it has no feeling.

Is the egg that is expelled during menses a living being that was murdered?
What of a tapeworm that is removed from a body?
Is it murder to removed a tumor? Is the tumor cell not living? My goodness, chemo to get rid of cancer trashes the body and nearly kill many in the process.
When is living cells feed off a person to survive its on being that deserved to be nourished no matter what is does to the host? The the host not have a say that it's body is being used to grow those cells/parasites?

Does a tape worm or leech have a brain of some kind that makes it a thinking feeling being deserving of life no matter what? It has cells that multiply, a digestive system of sorts, perhaps a brain and heart of a kind. Does that mean it can't be killed?

How about livestock killed to feed us? She we die rather than kill and consume meat? What of vegetables? Are they no living? Should we not cut and eat them either?

If the fetus cannot live outside the women, it is not an independent life form. It is just a 'sixth finger' or mole attacked to and feeding for the woman. Removal makes the life of the woman better.

What of plastic surgery? Doctors fix clef lips, reduce breasts, change the shape of noses and ears. Should those living cells not be removed or altered? What rights should a woman have over her own body? What rights do you have over her body, especially since you are not directly related?

And after an infant is born, does it not still feed off the women? Does she have a right to refuse to feed it? Is it not an independent being then and should feed itself? It is not longer a part of her, can she not 'kick it to the curb'? How long is her body and life not her own?

Conception? When cell divided. Bacteria and viruses do that. Should we not use antibiotics? Do they have a right to harm the host for the sake of giving them life?

How is a fetus attached and feeding from the woman's body any different? They are just cells. They have no life once detached from the woman. Did she given them permission and agree to be their host?

Don't give the sex is life argument. Sex is healthy part and need of the human body. It is not the purpose of every act of sex to produce a child. Masturbation is not destroying or is denying life either. Children should be created and wanted out of love, not a physical act of exercise and pleasure. Why would any one want to bring an unwanted child into the world just to set it aside? Why should exercise consume a woman's body for nine months?

Use birth control..........but some can't, and some fail. Celibacy is no way to live unless you are truly committed to follow that path. We dance, we drink, we enjoy an activity that brings an adrenaline rush, why should sex be any different, because an accident of nature creates a group of cells that subdivide and grow inside the woman?

Children should be loved and nourished, not unwanted and resented it whole life because it altered the woman's life in some way. Should a child feel abandoned and suffer health and mental problems because it was abandoned for adoption or foster care? Is that not more cruel?

Why should your idea that abortion is only birth control impact other reason for abortions for medical and mental health of the woman? What of the pain of bringing an infant that will know only pain before dying a good moral choice? Would you do that to your pet?

Humans have a right to refuse medical care, and if the woman refuses to care for the fetus inside her and bring about birth defects or injury because she refuses care, how is that better for anyone?

You can't force woman to want to be a mother. Why should you force her to carry a fetus to term just to toss it away, give up to the state. By what right do you have to tell a woman her body has to g through deformity for months to produce a life she does not want? Why does she have to risk her life just to give life to something she does not care about? Is a person who does not swim obligated to jump into a river to give life to someone drowning? And if both lives are lost in the process? My goodness, doctor and nurse can't even help people on the side of the road or risk being sued. They are refusing to save a life to save their own asses. A medic in the war cannot help anyone in need either as they are not licensed to practice medicine. Maybe a woman should be licensed and trained to become a mother first before being allowed to get pregnant. That way we will know the child will be properly love and care for. Some women are not ready or capable of being a mother and should not be forced to be.

Women are not slaves to your morality, only their own. Stay out of her doctor's visits and stop legislating against what medical treatment she can and cannot have.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, if we use the criteria that wrongs being committed benefit those in medical need from research done on their tissue, we can then justify any number of atrocities.

Lets say that adult t-cells when extracted from males aged 25 to 50 of the african ethnic group (blacks) could cure sickle cell anemia.

I think that using your criteria, a case could be made for increasing the frequency of death penalty cases, and lowering the appeal process. After all, the life is going to be terminated anyway, so why not benefit from the tissue? Just get a donor card from their mothers...

Would it be okay to then start slaughtering black prisoners?

Hell, we could justify the atrocities committed against cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc couldn't we.... I mean, the number of those killed makes the Holocaust look like nothing. But, well, we seem to manage to justify that.

Life, who cares? Unless it's a human fetus of course. And an American fetus at that. If we bomb a load of Arabs and a fetus dies, who cares, right?

 

[Katzndogz]

Now that we have established that the left regards children as invading viruses what's next?

 

[frigidweirdo]

If it is dead why not? We have the choice to donate body parts are our drivers license when we die.

They are murdered, leave them alone. They suffered enough.

I'm sure they feel so bad being dead. Probably just as bad as those Iraqis killed because of Bremer and Bush's blunders, or those executed, or those killed with guns or whatever.....

 

[aris2chat]

ng

So, if we use the criteria that wrongs being committed benefit those in medical need from research done on their tissue, we can then justify any number of atrocities.

Lets say that adult t-cells when extracted from males aged 25 to 50 of the african ethnic group (blacks) could cure sickle cell anemia.

I think that using your criteria, a case could be made for increasing the frequency of death penalty cases, and lowering the appeal process. After all, the life is going to be terminated anyway, so why not benefit from the tissue? Just get a donor card from their mothers...

Would it be okay to then start slaughtering black prisoners?

Hell, we could justify the atrocities committed against cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc couldn't we.... I mean, the number of those killed makes the Holocaust look like nothing. But, well, we seem to manage to justify that.

Life, who cares? Unless it's a human fetus of course. And an American fetus at that. If we bomb a load of Arabs and a fetus dies, who cares, right?

We can mark and mutilate our bodies and even amputate body parts but women can't abort a fetus?
We can donate our ogans even while alive but women can't abort a fetus or donate the tissue for research or medicine? We can choose to give blood but a woman can't choose if she wants to be a mother or not?

How is abuse of the women for the sake of an unwanted or dangerous fetus a moral good for anyone?

Life of a child should only be loved and wanted by it's parents. No one benefits from forcing a woman to carry and give birth if she is not ready, willing or able.

You can choose your career but you can't choose to become a parent? You can choose where to live but not to have your body become a home to a fetus for nearly a year, a minimal lease on an apartment. We sign a contract to rent, what contract did the fetus and woman sign and who is paying her for the rest of her body?

......and if it risks a woman's life in the process??? She has no choice which life to choose, her's or the fetus? A couple can adopt, but the loss of a partner, wife and soul mate can't easily be replaced.

 

[aris2chat]

Link to what specific cure baby parts has cured.

ebola virus was built on fetal cells. It might be just one stain right now, but it is a fast fantastic start. It might have taken more years just to get the first trial.

I love the way they say baby cells has cured diseases, when they can't name one.

You really are trying hard to be an arse.

Fetal cells injected into a man s brain to cure his Parkinson s - New Scientist

 

[Coyote]

ng

So, if we use the criteria that wrongs being committed benefit those in medical need from research done on their tissue, we can then justify any number of atrocities.

Lets say that adult t-cells when extracted from males aged 25 to 50 of the african ethnic group (blacks) could cure sickle cell anemia.

I think that using your criteria, a case could be made for increasing the frequency of death penalty cases, and lowering the appeal process. After all, the life is going to be terminated anyway, so why not benefit from the tissue? Just get a donor card from their mothers...

Would it be okay to then start slaughtering black prisoners?

Hell, we could justify the atrocities committed against cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc couldn't we.... I mean, the number of those killed makes the Holocaust look like nothing. But, well, we seem to manage to justify that.

Life, who cares? Unless it's a human fetus of course. And an American fetus at that. If we bomb a load of Arabs and a fetus dies, who cares, right?

We can mark and mutilate our bodies and even amputate body parts but women can't abort a fetus?
We can donate our ogans even while alive but women can't abort a fetus or donate the tissue for research or medicine? We can choose to give blood but a woman can't choose if she wants to be a mother or not?

How is abuse of the women for the sake of an unwanted or dangerous fetus a moral good for anyone?

Life of a child should only be loved and wanted by it's parents. No one benefits from forcing a woman to carry and give birth if she is not ready, willing or able.

You can choose your career but you can't choose to become a parent? You can choose where to live but not to have your body become a home to a fetus for nearly a year, a minimal lease on an apartment. We sign a contract to rent, what contract did the fetus and woman sign and who is paying her for the rest of her body?

......and if it risks a woman's life in the process??? She has no choice which life to choose, her's or the fetus? A couple can adopt, but the loss of a partner, wife and soul mate can't easily be replaced.

People forget that pregnancy and childbirth still carry a real risk for women, even in this age of modern medicine. In fact, I think those risks have been going up recently, particularly in certain demographic groups. A long time ago, we used to go to a park with a group of people and let our dogs play off lead. One of them was a couple and the wife was pregnant. They were young, not long married. We saw them up until maybe her last month. The next time we saw only the husband, maybe two months later. He was devasted. His wife had died during labor - an aneurysm. And here he was, a young father, with a new baby, and his life-partner gone just like that.

 

[aris2chat]

ng

So, if we use the criteria that wrongs being committed benefit those in medical need from research done on their tissue, we can then justify any number of atrocities.

Lets say that adult t-cells when extracted from males aged 25 to 50 of the african ethnic group (blacks) could cure sickle cell anemia.

I think that using your criteria, a case could be made for increasing the frequency of death penalty cases, and lowering the appeal process. After all, the life is going to be terminated anyway, so why not benefit from the tissue? Just get a donor card from their mothers...

Would it be okay to then start slaughtering black prisoners?

Hell, we could justify the atrocities committed against cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc couldn't we.... I mean, the number of those killed makes the Holocaust look like nothing. But, well, we seem to manage to justify that.

Life, who cares? Unless it's a human fetus of course. And an American fetus at that. If we bomb a load of Arabs and a fetus dies, who cares, right?

We can mark and mutilate our bodies and even amputate body parts but women can't abort a fetus?
We can donate our ogans even while alive but women can't abort a fetus or donate the tissue for research or medicine? We can choose to give blood but a woman can't choose if she wants to be a mother or not?

How is abuse of the women for the sake of an unwanted or dangerous fetus a moral good for anyone?

Life of a child should only be loved and wanted by it's parents. No one benefits from forcing a woman to carry and give birth if she is not ready, willing or able.

You can choose your career but you can't choose to become a parent? You can choose where to live but not to have your body become a home to a fetus for nearly a year, a minimal lease on an apartment. We sign a contract to rent, what contract did the fetus and woman sign and who is paying her for the rest of her body?

......and if it risks a woman's life in the process??? She has no choice which life to choose, her's or the fetus? A couple can adopt, but the loss of a partner, wife and soul mate can't easily be replaced.

People forget that pregnancy and childbirth still carry a real risk for women, even in this age of modern medicine. In fact, I think those risks have been going up recently, particularly in certain demographic groups. A long time ago, we used to go to a park with a group of people and let our dogs play off lead. One of them was a couple and the wife was pregnant. They were young, not long married. We saw them up until maybe her last month. The next time we saw only the husband, maybe two months later. He was devasted. His wife had died during labor - an aneurysm. And here he was, a young father, with a new baby, and his life-partner gone just like that.

I'm sure as much as he wants and love the child, there is pain from the loose of the wife everytime he looks at the infant. It takes time and not everyone can give all they want or should after such sadness. Children feel that and it hurts them. Love is not like changing a tire, one for the other. Even the best intentions it can take outside help to and time for the father and child to come to terms

 

[Katzndogz]

ng

So, if we use the criteria that wrongs being committed benefit those in medical need from research done on their tissue, we can then justify any number of atrocities.

Lets say that adult t-cells when extracted from males aged 25 to 50 of the african ethnic group (blacks) could cure sickle cell anemia.

I think that using your criteria, a case could be made for increasing the frequency of death penalty cases, and lowering the appeal process. After all, the life is going to be terminated anyway, so why not benefit from the tissue? Just get a donor card from their mothers...

Would it be okay to then start slaughtering black prisoners?

Hell, we could justify the atrocities committed against cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc couldn't we.... I mean, the number of those killed makes the Holocaust look like nothing. But, well, we seem to manage to justify that.

Life, who cares? Unless it's a human fetus of course. And an American fetus at that. If we bomb a load of Arabs and a fetus dies, who cares, right?

We can mark and mutilate our bodies and even amputate body parts but women can't abort a fetus?
We can donate our ogans even while alive but women can't abort a fetus or donate the tissue for research or medicine? We can choose to give blood but a woman can't choose if she wants to be a mother or not?

How is abuse of the women for the sake of an unwanted or dangerous fetus a moral good for anyone?

Life of a child should only be loved and wanted by it's parents. No one benefits from forcing a woman to carry and give birth if she is not ready, willing or able.

You can choose your career but you can't choose to become a parent? You can choose where to live but not to have your body become a home to a fetus for nearly a year, a minimal lease on an apartment. We sign a contract to rent, what contract did the fetus and woman sign and who is paying her for the rest of her body?

......and if it risks a woman's life in the process??? She has no choice which life to choose, her's or the fetus? A couple can adopt, but the loss of a partner, wife and soul mate can't easily be replaced.

People forget that pregnancy and childbirth still carry a real risk for women, even in this age of modern medicine. In fact, I think those risks have been going up recently, particularly in certain demographic groups. A long time ago, we used to go to a park with a group of people and let our dogs play off lead. One of them was a couple and the wife was pregnant. They were young, not long married. We saw them up until maybe her last month. The next time we saw only the husband, maybe two months later. He was devasted. His wife had died during labor - an aneurysm. And here he was, a young father, with a new baby, and his life-partner gone just like that.

An aneurysm is not a consequence of pregnancy.

 

[aris2chat]

ng

So, if we use the criteria that wrongs being committed benefit those in medical need from research done on their tissue, we can then justify any number of atrocities.

Lets say that adult t-cells when extracted from males aged 25 to 50 of the african ethnic group (blacks) could cure sickle cell anemia.

I think that using your criteria, a case could be made for increasing the frequency of death penalty cases, and lowering the appeal process. After all, the life is going to be terminated anyway, so why not benefit from the tissue? Just get a donor card from their mothers...

Would it be okay to then start slaughtering black prisoners?

Hell, we could justify the atrocities committed against cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc couldn't we.... I mean, the number of those killed makes the Holocaust look like nothing. But, well, we seem to manage to justify that.

Life, who cares? Unless it's a human fetus of course. And an American fetus at that. If we bomb a load of Arabs and a fetus dies, who cares, right?

We can mark and mutilate our bodies and even amputate body parts but women can't abort a fetus?
We can donate our ogans even while alive but women can't abort a fetus or donate the tissue for research or medicine? We can choose to give blood but a woman can't choose if she wants to be a mother or not?

How is abuse of the women for the sake of an unwanted or dangerous fetus a moral good for anyone?

Life of a child should only be loved and wanted by it's parents. No one benefits from forcing a woman to carry and give birth if she is not ready, willing or able.

You can choose your career but you can't choose to become a parent? You can choose where to live but not to have your body become a home to a fetus for nearly a year, a minimal lease on an apartment. We sign a contract to rent, what contract did the fetus and woman sign and who is paying her for the rest of her body?

......and if it risks a woman's life in the process??? She has no choice which life to choose, her's or the fetus? A couple can adopt, but the loss of a partner, wife and soul mate can't easily be replaced.

People forget that pregnancy and childbirth still carry a real risk for women, even in this age of modern medicine. In fact, I think those risks have been going up recently, particularly in certain demographic groups. A long time ago, we used to go to a park with a group of people and let our dogs play off lead. One of them was a couple and the wife was pregnant. They were young, not long married. We saw them up until maybe her last month. The next time we saw only the husband, maybe two months later. He was devasted. His wife had died during labor - an aneurysm. And here he was, a young father, with a new baby, and his life-partner gone just like that.

An aneurysm is not a consequence of pregnancy.

Cerebral aneurysm definition of cerebral aneurysm by Medical dictionary

 

[whitehall]

It's illegal to traffic in human body parts. Change the freaking law if you want to justify the Nazis in PP who are on tape offering to sell a the carcass of a full term infant as if it was a freaking turkey.

 

[Katzndogz]

If it's this easy to declare children non human we should certainly be able to declare other designations non human as well. A family should not be burdened with an elderly family member or one disabled as a result of post birth trauma. Just reclassify them as non human and experiment on their bodies.

Think of what this could mean to war injuries. As non humans all those disabled vets could have their organs parted out. Instead of losing money the VA could turn a profit.