Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Planned Parenthood exposed (Page 9)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15   
Author Topic: Planned Parenthood exposed
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, how's this conflict of interest any different from organ donation?
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

I went from "public face of conservatism" to "at least externally, the behavior of conservatives"

But to link with what Wayward said, lets just say CPAC et. al are "radical Conservatives"

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

Is there any evidence that the procedures to preserve tissue are more dangerous to the patient? I'm not saying there's no evidence, just I am not aware of any.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"radical Conservative"

Well, that's a painful oxymoron. *twitch* *twitch*

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you actually believe that a patient signing a form allowing for the donation of "tissue" adequately informs the patient of the inherent conflict of interest, where her doctor's surgical decisions may contravene her survival interests, because the doctor is weighing the extraction of "desirable" tissues against the patient's life and health?
I think the main question, Pete, is whether this "inherent conflict of interest" really matters.

Has anyone done a study that compares the rate of abortion complications for those who signed donation forms verses those who did not? Because if the rate is not significantly greater, then there would be no significant difference, and any conflict of interest would not matter.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you actually believe that a patient signing a form allowing for the donation of "tissue" adequately informs the patient of the inherent conflict of interest, where her doctor's surgical decisions may contravene her survival interests, because the doctor is weighing the extraction of "desirable" tissues against the patient's life and health?
WIthout evidence otherwise, what are you basing the assertion that they're not adequately counseling patients on an option that the patients need to request in the first place? Or the assertion that there is any significant difference in risk, rather than the difference simply being in our convenience to the doctor?

Do you even have some form of statistics regarding complications that you can point to here, or are you purely making up the assertion that there's a measurable difference in risk?

If I'm using a whole egg in a recipe, I'm at not greater risk of injury than if I need to separate an need and use just the yoke. I just have to take a little more time to do the separation, with the risk that I might break the yoke and have to wait for the next egg to get it right. At the same time, I'm not going to waste time and effort separating the egg if I don't need to. It's not a risk issue, just one of a proper investment of effort. The only way even the recipe I'm making comes under risk of being messed up is if I use a bad process instead of taking proper precautions ahead of time to negate all risks.

The assertion from PP is that there is no difference in risk between extracting a sample; it's not really even a different procedure. It's just a matter of whether the doctor needs to pay attention to what to cut when they're doing it, with the only risk being that they'll cut wrong and ruin the specimen.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" what are you basing the assertion that they're not adequately counseling patients"

What assertion? I said there is a serious conflict of interest and that I hope that clients are getting enough quality explanation to create a situation of informed consent. But you are taking my expression of concern as a unequivocal attaqck. It seems like if i am not perfectly in synch with what you are saying you assume i am on the attack.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you actually believe that a patient signing a form allowing for the donation of "tissue" adequately informs the patient of the inherent conflict of interest, where her doctor's surgical decisions may contravene her survival interests, because the doctor is weighing the extraction of "desirable" tissues against the patient's life and health?
I think the main question, Pete, is whether this "inherent conflict of interest" really matters.

Has anyone done a study that compares the rate of abortion complications for those who signed donation forms verses those who did not? Because if the rate is not significantly greater, then there would be no significant difference, and any conflict of interest would not matter.

While such a study would not resolve all of my concerns, it would address what is arguably the most important issue, i.e. actual safety. Thanks,W.

Why "arguably"? Because if Pyr were con sistent with half of what he'd said about his extraordinarily broad definition of "rape," he would probably place a higher priority on informed consent in this case.

[ August 26, 2015, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

Not to bug you, but...

Is there any evidence that the procedures to preserve tissue are more dangerous to the patient? I'm not saying there's no evidence, just I am not aware of any.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Seriati, why would you be in favor of "investigations" when the evidence is produced the way this video evidence was produced? i.e. by political operatives who troll shamelessly for sound bites they can then strip of context in order to deceive and generate outrage?

Because I don't actually share the outrage of the video producers, don't share their opinions and couldn't care less about their goals.

All I care about is the rule of law. No matter how shady a tipster the police should investigate a tip. It's fully reasonable for them to gauge the level of the investigation to the quality of the information - and they do so. By the way, it appears that several states have in fact conducted investigations and determined either that no law was violated, or that there wasn't any violation worth trying to prove. That is exactly the kind of result I was looking for.
quote:
By saying this justifies investigations, you might as well be saying that our politicians and administrators should allow their agenda to be set by dishonest political schemers.
Well no, I would never call for a political investigation. That's the hallmark of a banana republic. The only reason we have to suffer through them on the federal level is because we lack an independent justice department (justice reports to the President regardless of party).

Any investigations should be conduct by the appropriate members of law enforcement and/or regulatory authorities. And honestly, I'd be surprised if PP, as a medical provider receiving federal aid, is not ALREADY both routinely inspected and required to submit to inspection. It's a certainly that any or all of these records would be subject to review by the IRS in connection with their status as an charitable entity.
quote:
Because: the facts that they are supposedly revealing do not show that the law has been violated. They are entirely compatible with the law, once the context is restored. How can this justify investigations?
I called for investigations to determine the facts. There's been a lot of confusion in this thread about what's a fact and what's an opinion. Feel free to look back on my multiple responses about the facts.
quote:
If you think the law should require a higher degree of active monitoring and audits of this particular activity, that's different from saying that they should be investigated as a result of these videos.
True, and I both said I think monitoring should occur, and posed that very question to anyone who disagreed with me. And no one seemed to feel inclined to answer.

As I pointed out before, if you believe in an investigatory regime (rather than a compliance regime) then tipster accounts would be a reasonable basis to begin investigating. You may never get to probable cause as an investigator, but you'd be negligent to just ignore it.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks to Fenring for more calming walking through that with Wayward Son than I could have.
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
So from here on I'll try to refer to them a "radical Conservatives"...

I'd actually be satisfied with "some" conservatives.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
Seriati wrote:
quote:
No proven fact has been disregarded.
Here's the fact:
Industry experts agree vociferously that $30 to $100 is extremely unlikely to be enough to make a profit for PP. In other words, the totality of the expert opinions brought forward in this discussion agree that doubt about PP making a profit is not at all reasonable.

Do you deny this fact? You certainly never acknowledged it. I'd say you disregarded it.

When you write expert "opinion" in your response, do you not see the irony of then demanding that I acknowledge this "fact"? As I asserted, you are confusing opinions that you find credible, with facts, which is why you're having trouble analyzing my response.
quote:
For reasonable people, that fact is enough to dispel doubt that PP is making a profit.
It's not evidence. And with actual evidence available in the books and records of PP there's no reason to rely on speculation, not even really really persuasive speculation that you really really agree with.
quote:
If, however, someone has decided that PP is making a profit with the sole evidence being the completely worthless video, then nothing short of a complete top-to-bottom audit will eliminate doubt. And even then, believing the auditors may be "committing the fallacy of argument from authority."
Are you responding to me? I have reached no conclusion about whether PP is making a "profit". I wouldn't be surprised if their variable costs are less than the compensation received, which would result in gross margin in their favor. But as I repeatedly pointed out, even if that were the case the law allows them to allocate portions of their fixed costs to the process meaning they would be able to scrub the profit out.
quote:
You took my quote out of context, but did not change it.
I don't believe that I've ever backed anyone on a call for moderation. I'd have to look. But I know I've uniformly opposed any calls for content-based moderation, and particularly when they are based on declarations that your opponents are arguing in "bad faith." Just from reading your analysis its you have not engaged in the kind of rigorous argument and analysis necessary to determine that anyone else is making a bad faith argument.
quote:
You removed the sentence that made my first sentence clear, and added your own interpretation of the first sentence that was the exact opposite.

Do you deny this charge?

Yes, I deny the charge that I reversed the meaning of what you went on to say. You in fact specifically called for action against posters, who in your incorrect view, are ignoring proven facts (in my opinion based largely on their disagreement with your own conclusions).
quote:
Finally, I never used the word ban. Your repeated attribution of that word to me shows how what I wrote and what you wrote have no logical relationship. You took my quote out of context, and attributed a statement to me that I never made.
I apologize for that then, I suppose I should have included the possibility that you wanted them to be perpetually warned but not risk being banned if they continue to express wrong thoughts. Though then its not clear how you expect to get the sand out of the gears of discussion.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
So from here on I'll try to refer to them a "radical Conservatives"...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd actually be satisfied with "some" conservatives.

I toyed with that label, but it seemed too whimpy to me. After all, Radical Conservatives are far more loud and influential than your brand of Conservatism. (Just look at how ACORN was disbanded based on rumor and innuendo.)

While your brand of Conservatism may be in the majority, it is neither the face nor the driver of the ideology. The Radicals are getting the press and calling the shots, choosing the representatives, and steering your movement away from calm reasoning toward ideological purity. [Frown]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
Pete,

Not to bug you, but...

Is there any evidence that the procedures to preserve tissue are more dangerous to the patient? I'm not saying there's no evidence, just I am not aware of any.

I'm not aware that any study has been done. But since there's an inherent conflict of interest, ethics require that the issue be explored. Perhaps it has. Perhaps it hasn't. I haven't been able to find info, but from experience, my guess is that LR could find it if it's been done.

The trouble here is that the right wing has little interest in investigating patient safety, and in polarized political environments, folks that feel they are under fire often take short cuts with the rights with those they supposedly serve. A sense of persecution creates a closed subculture, where people who ask questions are seen as enemies. It's hard to run an ethical ship under such circumstances.

I didn't consider your quesstion bothersome, btw.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

You seem to be saying that there is a conflict of interest because the physician wants to preserve tissue, but also wants to minimize patient risk.

That conflict only exists if there is increased risk when preserving tissue. If there is no evidence of that increased risk, there is no conflict.

So without evidence of increased risk, there is no evidence of conflict of interest.

Here's an analogy: I propose that doctors playing golf within a week of a procedure increase the risk to their patients. Should that issue be explored, even if there is no evidence whatsoever to support it? If so, where do you draw the line on potential conflict of interest?

Seriati,

I am asking Mod to deter posters who clearly argue in bad faith. We disagree on whether that includes you.

But in any case, my clear statement was that if posters argue in bad faith, Mod should deter them, but not if I simply disagree.

Your clear statement is that I want Mod to deter posters that I disagree with.

If you want to pretend that you have not reversed my intention with your out-of-context quote, continue to pretend, but the truth is obvious.

quote:
its not clear how you expect to get the sand out of the gears of discussion.
Try reading my previous response to you, where I explained just that.

And finally-

There is a debate over whether it is reasonable to doubt that PP is only getting reimbursement for their costs.

Four experts say it is not reasonable to doubt that. That is a piece of information that is considered when determining reasonable doubt.

On the other side of that debate, you do not have a single shred of evidence, and refuse to give any credence whatsoever to expert opinions. I would even say you adamantly refuse to acknowledge that their statements have any bearing whatsoever in determining reasonable doubt. (Correct me if I am wrong).

But if my statements are correct, you are arguing in bad faith.

What facts could you possibly find with an audit that would undermine the experts opinions? Do you think PP is preparing tissue samples in a way that the experts are unaware of so their costs are somehow lower? If you can't provide an answer, then you are arguing in bad faith.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
Pete,

You seem to be saying that there is a conflict of interest because the physician wants to preserve tissue, but also wants to minimize patient risk.

That conflict only exists if there is increased risk when preserving tissue. If there is no evidence of that increased risk, there is no conflict.

So without evidence of increased risk, there is no evidence of conflict of interest.

Whether the inherent conflict of interests results in an actual downgrading of care and safety, probably depends on the specific case.

But here's a question for you: would you see an inherent conflict of interest if the doctors were required by law to, if possible, extract the fetus alive and undamaged? Or would you say, as with fetal tissue, that "without EVIDENCE of increased risk, there is no evidence of conflict of interest."

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would say universally: without evidence that X increases risk, there is no evidence of conflict of interest when attempting to do X during a procedure.

Conflict of interest, in this context, means that doing X must be balanced against patient safety. If the two are independent, there is no balancing involved

If someone familiar with the X and the procedure provides reasons why risk is increased, then that might be reason to commission a study. If the study showed no increased risk, there is no conflict of interest.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That last post looked like your previous post rendered in the style of mojo jojo. Was there some new point that I missed and had not previously addressed?

"Conflict of interest, in this context, means that doing X must be balanced against patient safety. If the two are independent, there is no balancing involved"

pretending for sake of argument that I accept your definition of "conflict of interest," please answer my previous question:

" would you see an inherent conflict of interest if the doctors were required by law to, if possible, extract the fetus alive and undamaged? Or would you say, as with fetal tissue, that "without EVIDENCE of increased risk, there is no evidence of conflict of interest."

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
But here's a question for you: would you see an inherent conflict of interest if the doctors were required by law to, if possible, extract the fetus alive and undamaged? Or would you say, as with fetal tissue, that "without EVIDENCE of increased risk, there is no evidence of conflict of interest."

Live birth, though, is, hands down riskier, especially since there's no scuttle option if a risk is perceived as there is with any tissue extraction, so the question is moot.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Why "arguably"? Because if Pyr were con sistent with half of what he'd said about his extraordinarily broad definition of "rape," he would probably place a higher priority on informed consent in this case.

Where do you have evidence of a lack of informed consent here? The patients have to request it, they are counseled on the procedure, they sign papers affirming that they understand the process. What more are you asking for? Your arguments seems to be implying, without any evidence to support your assertions, that they're failing in basic diligence in the matter, where PP's general reputation, from people that actually have used it for various services, is that it's exceptionally diligent about educating its clients and helping them pick the choices that best fit their needs and desires with full understanding.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
By the way, it appears that several states have in fact conducted investigations and determined either that no law was violated, or that there wasn't any violation worth trying to prove. That is exactly the kind of result I was looking for.
In other words, you were looking for PP to be drained of money and resources for specious investigations (note that they're being conducted in states where not tissue donation is done, and even in states where no abortions are performed) even though routine inspections showed no evidence of wrongdoing?

I think it's absurd to say that any tip from someone whose known to be actively trying to slander and harass someone should be respected- that turns the law into a tool to perpetuate harassment, as happened in these cases.

And that's just on credibility, not even getting to the fact that the "tip" showed no evidence of wrongdoing, and in fact supported the notion that they're acting in complete compliance with the law.

And initial investigations should have been focused on determining what just coming to light now- specifically that the "unedited" video was actually edited to try to create a false impression of scandal, even though it failed even there to anyone but those looking for an excuse to cry scandal.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

I thought I did answer the question. I never see conflict of interest if there is no evidence of risk.

I said it a different way because the first time didn't seem to get through, and you asked the same question.

As I understand the question, it is a tautology. The definition I gave for conflict is that by doing X, you increase risk to the patient. If doing X never increases the risk to the patient, it is by definition impossible to have a conflict of interest.

quote:
would you see an inherent conflict of interest if the doctors were required by law to, if possible, extract the fetus alive and undamaged?
If by "if possible" you mean without any additional risk to the mother, then there is no conflict of interest.

If by "if possible", you mean even if it kills the mother, then there is a conflict of interest.

If there is no evidence that extracting the fetus alive and undamaged is a risk to the mother, then there is no evidence of conflict of interest.

And finally, if there is no evidence that extracting tissue undamaged is a risk to the patient, then there is no evidence of conflict of interest.

If you have evidence that extracting tissue undamaged is a risk to the patient, say so. If you don't, then you have no evidence of conflict of interest.

I'm not saying there is no possibility of conflict of interest. Just that I have no reason to believe your assertion, since you have provided no evidence.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm not saying there is no possibility of conflict of interest. Just that I have no reason to believe your assertion, since you have provided no evidence."

I'm not sure you understood my assertion sufficient to say whether you believe it or not.

quote:
would you see an inherent conflict of interest if the doctors were required by law to, if possible, extract the fetus alive and undamaged?

If by "if possible" you mean without any additional risk to the mother, then there is no conflict of interest.

What I meant was without any additional procedural risk to the mother Do you have a problem with that? Or do you think that a doctor should weigh in the risk that the mother might take the baby home and then be kept up all night with its crying, putting her at "risk" for insomnia?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess I still don't understand the question.

Are you saying that if a woman went in for an abortion, and a doctor was legally obligated to extract the fetus alive and undamaged if it does not increase physical risk to the woman, would there be a conflict of interest in that the mother might decide to keep the baby?

Did I get that right?

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
I guess I still don't understand the question.

Are you saying that if a woman went in for an abortion, and a doctor was legally obligated to extract the fetus alive and undamaged if it does not increase physical risk to the woman, would there be a conflict of interest in that the mother might decide to keep the baby?

Did I get that right?

No.
Rephrase:

quote:
if a woman went in for an abortion, and a doctor was legally obligated to extract the fetus alive and undamaged if it does not increase *physical* risk to the woman, would that law create a conflict of interest?
Because extreme pro-abortion groups say it does, and that if a physician forsees substantial psychological stress, say of becoming a mother or adopting the baby out, or being kept up at night, that such considerations should absolutely override the life of a nine month fetus.

I'm personally fond of Carly Fiorani's nuanced position on abortion, which allows unrestricted up to 20 weeks (about the time that normal human brain waves are regularly measured) and restricted to cases of rape, incest, and danger to mother's physical health after 20 weeks.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are way too many factors in that hypothetical to give an answer.

Can the woman immediately surrender the rights to the baby and go home, given that she has likely made no preparations whatsoever to care for the baby?

Did the woman want the abortion because the fetus had a horrible genetic disease?

Will she be charged for a delivery instead of an abortion? What about neonatal care, since the fetus must be in the first 26 weeks (in most states) to be aborted?

If the fetus is 20 weeks, what is the point of delivering it "alive and undamaged"?

Assuming that the woman has no increased "physical" risk, that she will bear no financial or parental responsibility after the procedure, and that she is informed before the procedure that the baby may be delivered alive and undamaged, then there is no conflict of interest.

If the woman is responsible for $300,000 in medical bills for her 24 week fetus that she made an appointment to abort, then there is conflict of interest.

BTW, when is bringing up the opinion of extreme anybody actually help rational discussion?

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Can the woman immediately surrender the rights to the baby and go home, given that she has likely made no preparations whatsoever to care for the baby?"

In your mind, is that justification for abortion? If a doctor could remove the baby alive without more physical harm than the harm of abortion, do you think the doctor still should have an ethical duty to kill the baby because the mother isn't financially or emotionally ready to kill it?

See for me, and IMO for everyone that can honestly call themselves "pro choice," the right to abortion is based on a woman's right to her own body. "My body my choice", not "my offspring, my option."

"when is bringing up the opinion of extreme anybody actually help rational discussion? "

Because that extreme view represents 4+ members of the US Supreme Court.

"Will she be charged for a delivery instead of an abortion?"

I'm not sure a late term abortion costs less than a regular deliver. But is this really the basis on which we should deciding the fate of human life? Seems to me "her wallet, her choice" has less punch than her body her choice. And if you start weighing money against a right to life, then you open the doors to systematic misogyny through the so called "father's right to abortion." [Mad]

[ August 29, 2015, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Pete, how's this conflict of interest any different from organ donation?

As far as conflict, it isn't. When you go donate a kidney, you understand right out that the removal is not for your benefit, but for the recipient. You are made to understand that you are going to undergo compromise and risk to your health in order to donate bone marrow or a kidney, etc. I'm simply asking if there is that sort of informed consent with the donation of fetal tissue.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
restricted to cases of rape, incest, and danger to mother's physical health after 20 weeks
What about anencephaly, which can be detected during pregnancy, and is untreatable? Almost all babies with this condition die shortly after birth. Would you advocate laws that force the mother to carry this baby to term?
Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whoa!!!!!!

quote:
"Can the woman immediately surrender the rights to the baby and go home, given that she has likely made no preparations whatsoever to care for the baby?"

In your mind, is that justification for abortion? If a doctor could remove the baby alive without more physical harm than the harm of abortion, do you think the doctor still should have an ethical duty to kill the baby because the mother isn't financially or emotionally ready to kill it?

Pete, take a deep breath.

The question was conflict of interest, not justification for abortion.

Let's take one example. If the mother will be saddled with $300,000 in debt if the doctor decides there is no physical risk, and the doctor is on the fence about that, then the doctor has a conflict. Not an ethical duty to abort because of finances but clearly a conflict.

And in my mind, that is not justification for abortion. (Not in laws I want to pass to direct other peoples, actions, but in my mind.)

What was the point of the whole conflict of interest thing anyway?

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're right. I got off track and thank you for bringing it back on.

My understanding is that abortion proponents in NARAL and Partial Parenthood have argued strenuously against a law obligating doctors to try to extricate late term fetuses alive, if it can be done without posing more physical danger to the mother. They have argued conflict of interest, saying that giving the doctor that second purpose of preserving the baby's life compromises the mother's mental health if not her physical health. I'm simply pointing out that a similar conflict exists potentially for intact removal of "valuable" tissue.
------------
One issue that neither the right nor the left want us to address, is the distinction between a so called "abortion" where the fetus is already dead, and the physician's job is simply to remove it. This is one case where I would be OK with the D&X procedure, and I also think it should be perfectly OK to donate the tissues. Does anyone disagree on that point?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

I think the conflict is similar, but the scale is not. Whether a woman gives birth to a child is vastly different than whether a woman donates tissue.

You have kids. Imagine going in for a vasectomy, but depending on the situation, you may be bringing home a child. That is a significant life changing event.

How does that compare to finding out that the skin graft you donated didn't take?

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have not seen stats regarding the safety of delivering an intact dead fetus (like the one that the Partial Parenthood doctor was joking about sending by mail. Seems yo me that it would be more dangerous that a live birth, eswpecially if rigor mortis had set in.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I agree that's a surprise, but not a medical issue worth killing a baby over.

If the patient is emotionally fragile, the clinic should offer a "closed abortion" where patient is not informed if the fetus lives, and Planned Parenthood can charge a "reasonable delivery and handling fee to an adoption agency. I suspect the proceeds would be more than what they get from the tissue banks.

Bring on the objections [Smile]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're basically saying that PP should assume it has the authority to do whatever it wants with the woman's body and that her wishes in that regarded should be treated as irrelevant?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I have not seen stats regarding the safety of delivering an intact dead fetus (like the one that the Partial Parenthood doctor was joking about sending by mail. Seems yo me that it would be more dangerous that a live birth, eswpecially if rigor mortis had set in.

That's intuitively safer in a medical setting, because if any possible complication presents itself there's no need to balance the interest in keeping it intact against the safety of the procedure. You can simply do what's needed to mitigate the risks and hope for better luck next time.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm simply pointing out that a similar conflict exists potentially for intact removal of "valuable" tissue.
No it doesn't, because the needed tissue isn't tied to any specific procedure, but rather the ability to get it across any one of a number of procedures (while at the same time using a process that's far less dangerous than any fully intact birth.

And obligation to perform a live birth not only undermines the woman's power of consent in the situation, but it doesn't generalize, each birth has to be handled as an objective unto itself once committed to, you can't scuttle it halfway through and say "Maybe next time" in order to keep the risk level unchanged.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"No it doesn't, because the needed tissue isn't tied to any specific procedure, but rather the ability to get it across any one of a number of procedures "

As usual, you change the facts to suit your argument. In the case i just cited, the partial parenthood rep was talking about shipping an intact fetus body. So if d&x is "medically necessary" for the mother's health when the fetus is ALIVE, then why is it not necessary when the fetus is dead?


"And obligation to perform a live birth not only undermines the woman's power of consent in the situation,"

What obligation? You have already conceded that she's signed over rights to the "desirable" tissues and organs so long as they are safely extricated from her. Partial Parenthood acknowledged on video that getting a whole intact fetus specimin is particularly desirable. Since there are more than enough worthy couples seeking to adopt live babies, clearly those organs and tissues are most valuable as an intact living baby. how does the existing waiver not cover a termination of pregnancy which the baby survives?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
You're basically saying that PP should assume it has the authority to do whatever it wants with the woman's body and that her wishes in that regarded should be treated as irrelevant?

Not at all. I'm assuming that if a woman comes in for an abortion, and signs away all rights to the fetal tissue, that the woman's wishes with regard to what is done to the FETUS' body is irrelevant.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Another video drop, released unedited.
quote:
Inthe video Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Melissa Farrell, admits how the Houston Planned Parenthood abortion clinic is a high volume abortion facility that provides a large number of abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy. She admits the abortion center provides a high volume of fetal remains to biologic companies and discusses how abortion practitioners at this facility are able and willing to alter abortion procedures in order to ensure intact remains that can then be sold to biologic companies.

Farrell also admits that abortion practitioners at this facility actually conduct their own experimentation on human fetal remains obtained during abortions. She said price for the fetal remains are broken down by Planned Parenthood into “line items” and “baked” into contracts involving the sale of fetal remains.


Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1