Abortion Is Good For Everyone, It’s Science

[niyad]

Now THIS is pro-life


Abortion Is Good For Everyone, It’s Science


a lot, actually


Abortion is a wonderful thing. It’s a safe and simple medical procedure that allows women to control whether and when to have babies, and, in certain cases when a pregnancy becomes life-threatening, it saves women’s lives. That’s why a third of American women have abortions, and almost every single one of them (95 percent) are glad they did.

But wait, there’s more! You don’t have to be a woman with an unwanted or life-threatening pregnancy to benefit from abortion. In fact, you don’t have to be a woman at all. Everyone benefits from abortion. Thanks to women who choose to have abortions and then generously donate their aborted fetuses to medical research, scientists have been able to use fetal tissue to develop all kinds of treatments and cures for diseases. Isn’t science a wonderful thing? Check it:
Fetal cells are considered ideal because they divide rapidly, adapt to new environments easily and are less susceptible to rejection than adult cells when transplanted. […]
Researchers use fetal tissue to understand cell biology and human development. Others use it to look for treatments for AIDS. Research on spinal cord injuries and eyesight-robbing macular degeneration involves transplanting fetal cells into patients. […]

Vaccines have been one of the chief public benefits of fetal tissue research. Vaccines for hepatitis A, German measles, chickenpox and rabies, for example, were developed using cell lines grown from tissue from two elective abortions, one in England and one in Sweden, that were performed in the 1960s.
. . . .

Isn’t that marvelous, boys and girls? Abortion helped researchers develop a vaccine to reduce miscarriages, so women who want to have babies can do that. Talk about a win-win! Fetal tissue also led to the development of the polio vaccine, and nobody wants to go back to the old-timey days of polio. Not even Ted Cruz! Why, just look at his new ad showing what a terrible thing polio used to be:

. . .

http://wonkette.com/592834/abortion-is-good-for-everyone-its-science?utm_source=wysija&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=august+12

[jonno99]

1. "Soylent Green - is people!"

See if you can point out the parallel train of thought...

[CTyankee]

2. wow. And your point is that there is NO benefit to people from fetal cell research?

I will leave aside the question of a woman's moral agency in deciding whether or not to bear a child. Your comment is disturbing.

[jonno99]

3. I found the tone and tenor of the OP a little too flippant for my taste - disturbing even.

Should a woman be forced to bear a child? No

Should we "celebrate" all the things we can do with the fetal remains? No.

Why? We risk losing some of our our humanity by flippantly discussing this issue.

my two cents...

[CTyankee]

4. but they are not sold for profit (nor could they be), they are donated for research.

That research helps cure diseases and saves lives and spares people suffering. That's why it is a good thing. The OP shows a lesson on why. Otherwise, the subject is a bit abstract for a lot of people to understand. For instance, why fetal cells and not adult cells? And why are republicans denying that these cures were made as a direct result of fetal cells collected due to abortions? I don't find it particularly flippant.

[jonno99]

5. Please, a small sampling:

"Abortion is a wonderful thing"

"But wait, there’s more!"

"Isn’t that marvelous, boys and girls?"

I found the above attitude to be flippant & unserious. We're not talking about some plant product - we're talking about human remains. You're stuck on abortion, I'm talking about simple humanity.

What if the OP were discussing adult cadavers - wouldn't you find the above language a little crass ("'death' is a wonderful thing&quot ?

You thought the reference to Soylant Green was disturbing. I thought it was apropos in the context of the tone of the article. I wouldn't have been at all surprised if the author had taken the next logical step - "and look boys & girls, human remains provide a rich source of protein...".

Disturbing? You bet. Like I said, I didn't appreciate the flippant attitude.

[CTyankee]

6. so is it those few sentences that you find so terrible? Suppose we take those out?

Still objectionable?

And since they are "human remains" as you refer to them, well, why shouldn't we conduct funerals over pregnancies that are spontaneously aborted?

[jonno99]

7. You wouldn't ask that question if you'd ever struggled with fertility issues, and then lost a child.

I know people who have - and grieved the loss, and yes, held a little memorial. I'm sorry if that seems odd to you.

You can stand for women's reproductive rights without losing your humanity.

[CTyankee]

8. well, thanks alot for understanding the issue better than you do. Yes, I have had

friends and family members that have lost much wanted pregnancies and are STILL prochoice. I will thank you not to insult me further with your accusations.

[jonno99]

11. Sure. But (as I'm sure you know), the "no insults & no accusations" thing can go BOTH WAYS. nt

[Demeter]

12. Only a man wouldn't think a safe medical abortion was a wonderful thing

and desperate women would argue that the man should STFU.

[niyad]

15. ah, here we go with the "tone" argument, again, and again. . .

[jonno99]

18. This may be hard for you to accept, but not everyone appreciates sophmoric articles. nt

[niyad]

19. and yet, you read it. people are familiar with wonkette's style, so there should be no

surprise in the tone.

[Syzygy321]

10. In fact it was so flippant that I kept thinking it was a parody

put out by pro-lifers. I kept expecting the next paragraph to be:

"So, kids, go have sex early and often and without protection! Compete with your friends to see who can have the most abortions without suffering medical consequences! Yay abortions!"

How about a few facts:

1. For a woman early in pregnancy, legal abortion is WAY safer (and cheaper) than going on with pregnancy and childbirth

2. Therefore, all the Repub noise about "making clinics safe" with their stupid restrictions is pure hypocrisy.

3. But while abortion is safer than unwanted pregnancy, AVOIDING unwanted pregnancy is better still (medically,
financially, and emotionally). Abortion is not good; it's just less bad than the alternative.

4. In order of safety, the reproductive options are:

-- pregnancy and childbirth: most dangerous, debilitating, expensive, and stressful.**

-- better: early abortion.

-- better yet: contraception.**

-- safest of all: live and die a virgin.

** I am ignoring the decreased ovarian cancer risks with pregnancy and hormonal contraception because, complicated. But worth educating ourselves about.

[niyad]

16. may I remind you that no contraception is 100% failure-proof?

[Syzygy321]

17. Of course; we both know that.

And even in a nun in a convent can be raped.

And there are conditions other than pregnancy that require the medical equivalent of a D and C (for example, dysfunctional bleeding with anemia).

I am certainly not saying every abortion is preventable. I am saying that choosiness and contraception are medically, financially and emotionally preferable to most women. Do you agree that most pregnant women facing abortion are not saying "yay, I get to donate tissue! I am happy!"

[Rebubula]

9. Overpopulation

I know it is a bit flippant and silly....but for more than 25 years I have said that Abortion and homosexuality are good for the planet.

I fear overpopulation - we will probably be at 15 Billion by 2040. That is almost 4x t what it was when I was a child. Overpopulation will eventually create very dire circumstances for people living in population centers (one reason why I chose to opt out and buy a house in the country -- and yes, I know most people cannot simply do that...I am fortunate) and will cause food\supplies shoratages and create famine\war\disease.

It is this fear that caused me to not want children at all. I did adopt a wonderful son when I married my wife - but I fear for his future...as well as my own.

So...this article is outlandish in its verbage, but the point, in my uneducated\fearful opinion, is accurate.

[kristopher]

13. You think we are going to add 8 billion people in 25 years?

You might want to revisit your investigation of the trend lines...

WORLD POPULATION LIKELY TO SURPASS 11 BILLION IN 2100
U.S. population projected to grow by 40% over next 85 years

SEATTLE, WA, AUGUST 10, 2015 – The world’s population will increase from today’s 7.3 billion people to 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion at century’s end, John R. Wilmoth, the director of the United Nations (UN) Population Division, told a session focused on demographic forecasting at the 2015 Joint Statistical Meetings (JSM 2015) today in Seattle.

The UN projection suggests there will not be an end to world population growth this century unless there are unprecedented fertility declines in those parts of sub-Saharan Africa that are still experiencing rapid population growth. The UN estimated the probability that world population growth will end within this century to be 23%.

Wilmoth’s presentation—“Populations Projections by the United Nations”—was made as part of an invited session titled “Better Demographic Forecasts, Better Policy Decisions” held here today.

Wilmoth told the audience that according to models of demographic change derived from historical experience, it is estimated the global population will be between 9.5 and 13.3 billion people in 2100. In the United States, the population is projected to add 1.5 million people per year on average until the end of the century, pushing the current count of 322 million people to 450 million, he said.…

http://www.amstat.org/newsroom/pressreleases/JSM2015-WorldPopulationEstimatesPresentation.pdf

Posted originally by OKIsItJustMe http://www.democraticunderground.com/112789561

[niyad]

14. . . .

[niyad]

20. . . .