• crowepps

     Unsupervised misoprostol abortions are risky because about 10%-15% of the time, the drug will start the process but not finish the job. If that happens the woman is at risk for bleeding, infections, and other complications.

    This is exactly what happens in spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) as well, and that is why spontaneous abortions are routinely followed up with D&C abortion or suction evacuation abortions in order to be sure infection doesn’t set in.  Women who have used misoprostol illegally need only lie to the doctor and imply they are having spontaneous abortions — however, I am not sure how dangerous it will be for them to do so because I don’t have the medical knowledge to be aware of what complications can be caused when the doctor doesn’t know the drug was used.  I suppose that could have less impact on her medical care than the doctor refusing to treat her because she CHOSE to end the pregnancy and for moral reasons he will only condescend to share his medical knowledge with women who ‘know their place’.

  • kevin-rahe

    In nature, stem cells have the potential to develop into any kind of specialized cell in the body.

     

    And some people still have the gall to say that an embryo isn’t a complete human being.

     

    True, a human embryo must be destroyed in order to create a line of stem cells.

     

    These are no different than the embryos that are held as precious children by those who have them created in the course of in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures and which will – if only given the chance and with nothing further added to them – grow and develop into adults.

     

    The notion that studying a 1-day-old cell descended from an embryo destroyed 12 years ago is harming that embryo is absurd.

     

    It is remote participation in an evil act.

  • jayn

    These are no different than the embryos that are held as precious children by those who have them created in the course of in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures and which will – if only given the chance and with nothing further added to them – grow and develop into adults.

     

    So, if I were to unfreeze one of those embryos, set it on a table and leave it alone for the next nine months, I’ll come back to find a baby?

     

    Your ‘chance’ is my freaking body.  I don’t have to give it to anyone I don’t want to give it to.

  • crowepps

    It is remote participation in an evil act

     

    By that logic, it would be immoral to adopt a baby conceived during rape.

  • kevin-rahe

    By that logic, it would be immoral to adopt a baby conceived during rape.

     

    An adoptive couple does not require that an evil act take place in order to provide them with a baby, nor does a rapist intend any lasting benefits from his evil exploits.  Nowhere near the same thing as killing an embryo for its stem cells.

  • prochoiceferret

    An adoptive couple does not require that an evil act take place in order to provide them with a baby,

     

    Yes, they can perfectly well adopt a baby that wasn’t born of rape. So crowepps’s original point stands.

     

    nor does a rapist intend any lasting benefits from his evil exploits.

     

    What makes you say that? If the law prevents rape victims from getting abortions, the rapist might very well be intending to reproduce and pass on his genes. Why wouldn’t he? He’s got the state to help him out with that!

     

    Nowhere near the same thing as killing an embryo for its stem cells.

     

    Yeah, you’re right. Killing a 14-day-old embryo is nowhere near as bad a thing as a woman getting raped and pregnant.

  • kevin-rahe

    Just because you fail to understand or acknowlege the logic doesn’t mean that it isn’t correct.  crowepps’ point falls.

     

    the rapist might very well be intending to reproduce and pass on his genes.

     

    The suggestion that a rapist’s actions might be benevolent is unique.  I have to commend you on your originality, at least.

     

    Killing a 14-day-old embryo is nowhere near as bad a thing as a woman getting raped and pregnant.

     

    I intended to make no value judgment – only to say that the actions weren’t comparable.  And raping a woman wasn’t even one of them.

  • ahunt

    Passing on one’s genes is by force is “benevolent?” Since when? I can think of nothing more selfish!

  • kevin-rahe

    I suggested that a rapist does not intend good to come from his actions, and PCF argued against me on the point.  Go figure.

  • ahunt

    Forced/unwanted pregnancy is a good thing? Since when?

  • arekushieru

    The fetus intends good for the woman when it implants itself into the uterus?  Uh, no.  The fetus doesn’t intend ANYthing.

  • arekushieru

    I see you went from benefit to benevolent, though.  WAY to change the goal posts, Kevin!

  • kevin-rahe

    Benefit1: an act of kindness; 2 a: something that promotes well-being, b: useful aid

     

    Benevolent1 a:  marked by or disposed to doing good, b: organized for the purpose of doing good; 2: marked by or suggestive of goodwill

     

    Real antonyms there!  Sheesh, they even have the same root word.  If that’s all you can find to pick on me about, I must be doing pretty good! :-)

  • ahunt

    Yah Kevin…but we are still wondering how a rape with the intent of sending genes downrange is either benevolent or beneficial.

  • kevin-rahe

    we are still wondering how a rape with the intent of sending genes downrange is either benevolent or beneficial.

     

    I never argued that it was.  You need to badger PCF about that one.

  • truth

    “The question of stem cells is currently the dominant subject in the debate over biotechnology and human genetics: Should we use embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells for future medical therapies? Embryonic stem cells are taken from a developing embryo at the blastocyst stage, destroying the embryo, a developing human life. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are found in all tissues of the growing human being and, according to latest reports, also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity. Embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy, while adult stem cells have already been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction (death of some of the heart tissue).”

  • squirrely-girl

    … if you don’t share the source.

     

    Either way, 

    Embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy,

    Do you think this is perhaps because there are such stringent guidelines surrounding it here in the US? Do you think this applies equally to other countries?

  • arekushieru

    Yep, thanks for proving my point!  Useful aid doesn’t need to be anything good!

  • kevin-rahe

    There are no restrictions in this country on the use of private funds to research the use of embryonic stem cells to cure disease.  Biotechnology is a huge industry in this country.  If embryonic stem cells have any real promise, there is plenty of private money available to help learn how to exploit them.

Mobile Theme