rickyp wrote:fate

Is there a difference between a "spontaneous abortion" and an abortion of choice

Is there a difference in the end result?

And since we know that many more spontaneous abortions will occur when a woman is not on birth control pills versus when she is not on birth control...
Is the woman not on birth control making a decision to abort?

Answer other people's questions. You went on to Dr. Fate's post and skipped. What; was it too hard?

Pray tell, what was PP representing what they do by negotiating the price and tactics to harvest fetal organs?

After 22 weeks what happens then?

rickyp wrote:

Pray tell, what was PP representing what they do by negotiating the price and tactics to harvest fetal organs?

I don't think that this represents the conversation that occurred accurately. I said as much.
There is a policy that provides for the reimbursement of expenses to clinics for costs incurred in shipping tissues. Explaining that policy is not "negotiating a price".

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:

Pray tell, what was PP representing what they do by negotiating the price and tactics to harvest fetal organs?

I don't think that this represents the conversation that occurred accurately. I said as much.
There is a policy that provides for the reimbursement of expenses to clinics for costs incurred in shipping tissues. Explaining that policy is not "negotiating a price".

I'll bet you $1000 they were not merely "explaining" the shipping policy. They were negotiating and explaining how they change technique depending on the desired "part." Let's go to the transcripts and have a go, shall we?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:

Pray tell, what was PP representing what they do by negotiating the price and tactics to harvest fetal organs?

I don't think that this represents the conversation that occurred accurately. I said as much.
There is a policy that provides for the reimbursement of expenses to clinics for costs incurred in shipping tissues. Explaining that policy is not "negotiating a price".

I'll bet you $1000 they were not merely "explaining" the shipping policy. They were negotiating and explaining how they change technique depending on the desired "part." Let's go to the transcripts and have a go, shall we?

Are those transcripts the full unexpurgated ones, or based on the edited versions? Editing can severely alter the context of a comment.

If a mother consents to the use of the remains, and as such that affects the method used, as long as she is fully informed and the method is legal and well regulated then I would not object.

To be honest, my main concern is not the language used, or that there are differing costs depending on the requirements of a research partner. It is whether women are being pressured or not fully informed. THAT would be a breach of medical ethics and, I would hope, the Law.

But these videos are not evidence of that, even indirectly.

That pressure ends up pushing technicians to get blood and organs even when the women expressly forbid it. In one case O’Donnell recalls, a late-term mother refused consent, which O’Donnell explained to the other technician. “You have to make sure you get her,” O’Donnell’s colleague told her, but O’Donnell said she had refused consent. That didn’t stop the technician, however. “If there was a higher gestation, and the technicians needed it, there were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”

Doctor Fate wrote:Agreed. So, I would have no problem looking at the full transcript.

We have eyewitness testimony of it.

Furthermore, to alter the procedure in order to "save" a part of the baby is a violation of law. We have a doctor on video talking about using less "crunchy" techniques so as to not damage specific parts--a direct violation.

Jen Gunter, an obstetrician-gynecologist, wrote on her blog that Carson had co-authored an academic paper published in Hum Pathol, in which he described working with material "from two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation."

On the campaign trail in Manchester, New Hampshire, Carson told CNN his research simply used the tissue from aborted fetuses that was made available to him.

"We have banked material in the pathology lab from people from every age -- from day 1 of concept to 120 years told. Those specimens are available for people who want to do comparisons," Carson said. "To not use the tissue that is in a tissue bank, regardless of where it comes from, would be foolish. Why would anybody not do that?"

"Bear this in mind about pathologists," said Carson. "Regardless of what their ideology is, when they receive tissue, they prepare the tissue. They label it. They mark how it got there. Regardless of whether it’s from a fetus or someone who’s 150 years old, they bank them in tissue blocks. Other people doing comparative research need to have a basis. When pathologists receive specimen, their job is to prepare the specimen. They have no job opining on where the tissue came from."

Are you saying that Dr. Ben Carson has used fetal tissues from an intentional abortion, or an unplanned miscarriage? I am all for the latter being used with parental consent. It is some good coming out a terrible situation.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Are you saying that Dr. Ben Carson has used fetal tissues from an intentional abortion, or an unplanned miscarriage? I am all for the latter being used with parental consent. It is some good coming out a terrible situation.

How would you tell the difference? (My initial answer shows that to Carson it didn't matter at the time.)
There are apparently some states that require a patient to sign off on the use of fetal tissue before it can be used. However most don't have that requirement. Perhaps because there has never been an equivalence made between fetal tissue and the remains of a deceased person.

And whether or not its a miscarriage or a planned abortion doesn't this phrase apply?
It is some good coming out a terrible situation