Ben Carson: It was OK for me to do research on aborted fetuses

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-17-2015, 05:35 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: The ones that were not successfully implanted died of natural causes, because not all fertilized eggs are able to implant themselves into the womb. The ones that did not develop into blastocyst were due to an irregularity in the sperm or egg which is also normal in nature, and they rarely implant in the womb thus dieing of natural causes.

That is a reasonable answer.

Quote:If she agreed to having that procedure done then yes. If she agreed to it then nothing is being forced on her.

She only gave consent to a single embryo transfer.  Any additional embryo transfer would be forced upon her without giving consent again.

Quote:Maybe the doctor should reduce the number of ovum that they fertilize, and inject. If something has a health risk to the mother that's an exception.

I think you mean the doctors should reduce the number of embryos they implant.  They can implant one embryo or multiple embryos.  The decision is individualized.  Each technique has its advantages and disadvantages.  Patients make informed decisions based upon the information and guidance of their doctors and their own consciences.  Those decisions involve the patients and the doctors.  Not you or me or anyone else in this thread.

Quote:The doctors should only fertilize the amount of ovum that they will be using.

That isn't possible with every technique.  IVF is very expensive and some couples may only be able to afford one chance to have a child.  They should be able to make informed decisions for themselves.  Not chose from a list of choices you approved.

These are just a few of the moral complexities couples have to face.  In addition, we do prenatal genetic testing such as a triple screen for birth defects.  The triple screen can yield false negative results so an amniocentesis can be performed to further assess any abnormal results.  If the amniocentesis confirms the abnormality, couples are faced with the decision to continue the pregnancy knowing the child has a defect which may not be compatible with life or may prevent a "normal" life or choose to terminate the pregnancy.  There are no right or wrong answers.  There are only the best answers they can make at that time for them based upon their values, morals, and beliefs.  Not mine.  Not yours.  Ultimately, my wife and I chose not to have the triple screen done because if it was abnormal there is a small chance the amniocentesis could terminate a pregnancy.  We decided the risk of the amniocentesis (termination of the pregnancy) was greater than the benefit of knowing if the triple screen results were truly abnormal.  If the results were abnormal we would then need to decide what to do with that information; terminate the pregnancy or make the best of a bad situation.  We decided we would make the best of the situation regardless.  That was the best decision for us.  It may not be the best decision for someone else. But, I don't believe I have the right to tell others what decisions they should make in similar circumstances.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-17-2015, 06:27 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Well that was mature.

Brownshoe wrote the embryo is never "apart" from the mother.  That means they are one and the same, not distinct.

What do you suggest would be a more mature way for me to respond than clarifying the definition of apart?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-17-2015, 05:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guy, he admitted he did it; claims he did it on purpose. I'm not sure what else you need.

Show me where he argued you can't be against abortion.  Benton personally opposes abortion so how the hell can he argue you can't feel the same way he does about the same issue?  Guy.

[Brownshoe]

(08-17-2015, 06:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That is a reasonable answer.


She only gave consent to a single embryo transfer.  Any additional embryo transfer would be forced upon her without giving consent again.


I think you mean the doctors should reduce the number of embryos they implant.  They can implant one embryo or multiple embryos.  The decision is individualized.  Each technique has its advantages and disadvantages.  Patients make informed decisions based upon the information and guidance of their doctors and their own consciences.  Those decisions involve the patients and the doctors.  Not you or me or anyone else in this thread.


That isn't possible with every technique.  IVF is very expensive and some couples may only be able to afford one chance to have a child.  They should be able to make informed decisions for themselves.  Not chose from a list of choices you approved.

These are just a few of the moral complexities couples have to face.  In addition, we do prenatal genetic testing such as a triple screen for birth defects.  The triple screen can yield false negative results so an amniocentesis can be performed to further assess any abnormal results.  If the amniocentesis confirms the abnormality, couples are faced with the decision to continue the pregnancy knowing the child has a defect which may not be compatible with life or may prevent a "normal" life or choose to terminate the pregnancy.  There are no right or wrong answers.  There are only the best answers they can make at that time for them based upon their values, morals, and beliefs.  Not mine.  Not yours.  Ultimately, my wife and I chose not to have the triple screen done because if it was abnormal there is a small chance the amniocentesis could terminate a pregnancy.  We decided the risk of the amniocentesis (termination of the pregnancy) was greater than the benefit of knowing if the triple screen results were truly abnormal.  If the results were abnormal we would then need to decide what to do with that information; terminate the pregnancy or make the best of a bad situation.  We decided we would make the best of the situation regardless.  That was the best decision for us.  It may not be the best decision for someone else. But, I don't believe I have the right to tell others what decisions they should make in similar circumstances.

If someone get's an IVF they should be informed on what could happen. If they make the decision to bring life into this world then they have to be responsible for it. If the embryo has abnormalities then they should know that's a risk of having an IVF. If the abnormality makes the unborn not compatible with life, or would make the unborn suffer then I would think it would be appropriate to abort it.

[Benton]

(08-17-2015, 06:39 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Show me where he argued you can't be against abortion.  Benton personally opposes abortion so how the hell can he argue you can't feel the same way he does about the same issue?  Guy.

I'm not really sure what bfines saying but if there's any question on my stance on abortion it's:

I'm antiabortion except for instances of rape or when there's a medical concern. There is no hard line with anything, although I'm pretty resolute that it should not be considered as an after the fact birth control. And speaking of after, I don't have any problem with the morning after pill. At that point, it's still just a clump of cells requiring a person to provide for it to grow.

[Shake n Blake]

(08-17-2015, 06:36 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Brownshoe wrote the embryo is never "apart" from the mother.  That means they are one and the same, not distinct.

What do you suggest would be a more mature way for me to respond than clarifying the definition of apart?

I don't need the explanation. I saw the mistake. I just didn't care.

A mature way to handle it would be sending a PM and explaining the mistake. Or doing what most people do and ignoring the mistake altogether, while realizing that grammatical errors are fairly common on the net, and even the most intelligent people make some mistakes from time to time. We're not being paid for this and we don't have editors.

The immature way to handle it would be to point out the error in front of everyone by posting the entire definition. Rather than addressing his points, you're attacking his intelligence in a very condescending manner.

Heck, I realize that the post I'm writing right now has comma's in wrong spots and a run-on sentence. We're posting on a football message board. Not writing for a newspaper.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-17-2015, 07:50 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I don't need the explanation. I saw the mistake. I just didn't care.

A mature way to handle it would be sending a PM and explaining the mistake. Or doing what most people do and ignoring the mistake altogether, while realizing that grammatical errors are fairly common on the net, and even the most intelligent people make some mistakes from time to time. We're not being paid for this and we don't have editors.

The immature way to handle it would be to point out the error in front of everyone by posting the entire definition. Rather than addressing his points, you're attacking his intelligence in a very condescending manner.

Heck, I realize that the post I'm writing right now has comma's in wrong spots and a run-on sentence. We're posting on a football message board. Not writing for a newspaper.

I did not attack his intelligence. I was not correcting his grammar. If he believes I did I apologize.  Whether the embryo is "apart" or "a part" from the mother makes a huge difference. I didn't know which one he meant. If you think I am being condescending to Brownshoe or you, you're incorrect. If you think I am being condescending to bfine or jake, you are correct. I have no reason to be condescending to you or Brownshoe.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-17-2015, 07:14 PM)Benton Wrote: I'm not really sure what bfines saying but if there's any question on my stance on abortion it's:

I'm antiabortion except for instances of rape or when there's a medical concern. There is no hard line with anything, although I'm pretty resolute that it should not be considered as an after the fact birth control. And speaking of after, I don't have any problem with the morning after pill. At that point, it's still just a clump of cells requiring a person to provide for it to grow.

(08-15-2015, 10:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's the same tired argument. Folks will try so hard that they will try to lead you to believe that you cannot be against abortion if you remove bacteria. Rest easy in the fact that you know that human life begins at conception. Most Pro-choice folk try to argue that life starts far after conception (ie separate life); yet, apparently some feel they can make a point by asserting it starts before conception.

Because you wrote "fertilized eggs" + "bacteria" + "eradicating" he believes you argued he can't be against abortion.
Can he call 'em?  Or can he call em'?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-17-2015, 07:06 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: If someone get's an IVF they should be informed on what could happen. If they make the decision to bring life into this world then they have to be responsible for it. If the embryo has abnormalities then they should know that's a risk of having an IVF. If the abnormality makes the unborn not compatible with life, or would make the unborn suffer then I would think it would be appropriate to abort it.

People have to be informed in order to give informed consent.  We were informed.  We gave informed consent.  Blastocyst are not individuals with individual rights.  Obviously, you disagree.  I'm not trying to tell you what to believe or not believe.  I'm saying your beliefs don't supersede the beliefs of others.

[Brownshoe]

(08-17-2015, 08:27 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: People have to be informed in order to give informed consent.  We were informed.  We gave informed consent.  Blastocyst are not individuals with individual rights.  Obviously, you disagree.  I'm not trying to tell you what to believe or not believe.  I'm saying your beliefs don't supersede the beliefs of others.

When do you think human beings get individual rights?

I have changed my stance multiple times on abortion. After some thought recently I came to a conclusion that human life begins at conception. My reasoning behind this is that the fertilized egg is alive, and it has the DNA of a human; making it a human being . The reason why sperm cells or ovum (the egg) are not human beings, are because they only contain half of the DNA of a human. The reason why it doesn't need brain activity, or a heartbeat is because it's already alive. The reason why it's not a part of the mother is that it has it's own individual set of DNA apart from it's mothers DNA (see what I did there).

[*bfine32*]

(08-17-2015, 06:39 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Show me where he argued you can't be against abortion.  Benton personally opposes abortion so how the hell can he argue you can't feel the same way he does about the same issue?  Guy.

You're funny.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-17-2015, 09:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You're funny.

You're deflecting.

Guy.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-17-2015, 08:59 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: When do you think human beings get individual rights?

I have changed my stance multiple times on abortion. After some thought recently I came to a conclusion that human life begins at conception. My reasoning behind this is that the fertilized egg is alive, and it has the DNA of a human; making it a human being . The reason why sperm cells or ovum (the egg) are not human beings, are because they only contain half of the DNA of a human. The reason why it doesn't need brain activity, or a heartbeat is because it's already alive. The reason why it's not a part of the mother is that it has it's own individual set of DNA apart from it's mothers DNA (see what I did there).

Sorry, I meant to answer your question sooner.  When a human becomes an individual is closely connected to when life begins.  (At least, I think so in most cases.)  As you can see from this thread alone, there isn't one universally correct answer.  My answer is probably different than your answer.  That doesn't make my answer correct and your answer wrong.  But, each of our answers is based upon our beliefs, morals, and values.  My beliefs, morals, and values don't trump your's and vice versa.  

I don't believe in abortion as a means of birth control.  So let's discuss prenatal genetic testing as an example.  Let's suppose the triple screen and amniocentesis confirm a neural tube defect and an ultrasound reveals anencephaly.  That birth defect is pretty much incompatible with life.  Maybe just a few hours after birth.  That couple is faced with the decision to terminate the pregnancy or give birth to a child which will only live a few hours.  That is not the time for me to impose my beliefs upon them.  

So I believe people should make their own decisions based upon their own values, morals, and beliefs and not based upon mine or yours.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-21-2015, 11:16 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:  

So I believe people should make their own decisions based upon their own values, morals, and beliefs and not based upon mine or yours.

I don't think this can be stated nearly enough.

rep

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-21-2015, 11:16 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So I believe people should make their own decisions based upon their own values, morals, and beliefs and not based upon mine or yours.

Before I begin, I want to state that I think you're a very solid poster and I enjoy our back and forth on topics. 

Now to your post, I will say that there's something to your argument there.  Being a libertarian, I spend a lot of time arguing with people on both sides about a great deal of topics, and one of the arguments that I always have with conservatives is their stance on morality and wanting to force a certain moral code on others.  The problem with pushing morality that I have is that in many circumstances, morals are based on opinions.  What one person might find morally acceptable, say pornography for example, another person might find morally objectionable and disgusting.

And in that example, while the simple solution might be for the person who finds it morally objectionable and disgusting to not watch it, often times these types of people want to push their moral beliefs on others.  These people are perfectly willing to restrict or take away the freedoms of others because of their own personal feelings. 

As to how this fits into the abortion discussion is simple for me.  IMO, the only time freedoms should be restricted or taken away is when they infringe on the rights or freedoms of others.  I believe that abortion does just that, and there's not an argument that can be made regarding when life begins or whether it deserves individual rights that is going to sway that opinion. 

And to finalize, that doesn't mean that I think that rape or incest victims should be forced to carry babies to term.  It doesn't mean that I don't care about children after they're born.  I just personally feel that it's the worst thing going in America.  

[Shake n Blake]

(08-21-2015, 10:05 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Being a libertarian, I spend a lot of time arguing with people on both sides about a great deal of topics, and one of the arguments that I always have with conservatives is their stance on morality and wanting to force a certain moral code on others.  

True, but don't liberals want to do the exact same thing? They have a moral code on issues such as abortion, gun rights and gay marriage, and they want to force it down everyone's throats just the same as conservatives want to push their moral standards. It goes both ways. If it didn't, conservatives would run this country. Last I checked, abortion was legal, gay marriage is legal, marijuana is being legalized and guns have more and more restrictions.

Perhaps conservatives aren't aggressive enough?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-22-2015, 12:43 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: True, but don't liberals want to do the exact same thing? They have a moral code on issues such as abortion, gun rights and gay marriage, and they want to force it down everyone's throats just the same as conservatives want to push their moral standards. It goes both ways. If it didn't, conservatives would run this country. Last I checked, abortion was legal, gay marriage is legal, marijuana is being legalized and guns have more and more restrictions.

Perhaps conservatives aren't aggressive enough?

Yes, of course liberals want to do the exact same thing. 

I expect that sort of stupidity out of liberals, though.  The "conservatives" tend to annoy me more in such matters because they claim to be a party of limited government and individual freedom and liberty. 

[Shake n Blake]

(08-22-2015, 12:52 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Yes, of course liberals want to do the exact same thing. 

I expect that sort of stupidity out of liberals, though.  The "conservatives" tend to annoy me more in such matters because they claim to be a party of limited government and individual freedom and liberty. 

Gotcha. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-21-2015, 10:05 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Before I begin, I want to state that I think you're a very solid poster and I enjoy our back and forth on topics. 

Now to your post, I will say that there's something to your argument there.  Being a libertarian, I spend a lot of time arguing with people on both sides about a great deal of topics, and one of the arguments that I always have with conservatives is their stance on morality and wanting to force a certain moral code on others.  The problem with pushing morality that I have is that in many circumstances, morals are based on opinions.  What one person might find morally acceptable, say pornography for example, another person might find morally objectionable and disgusting.

And in that example, while the simple solution might be for the person who finds it morally objectionable and disgusting to not watch it, often times these types of people want to push their moral beliefs on others.  These people are perfectly willing to restrict or take away the freedoms of others because of their own personal feelings. 

As to how this fits into the abortion discussion is simple for me.  IMO, the only time freedoms should be restricted or taken away is when they infringe on the rights or freedoms of others.  I believe that abortion does just that, and there's not an argument that can be made regarding when life begins or whether it deserves individual rights that is going to sway that opinion. 

And to finalize, that doesn't mean that I think that rape or incest victims should be forced to carry babies to term.  It doesn't mean that I don't care about children after they're born.  I just personally feel that it's the worst thing going in America.  

I agree with the bold part.  Especially, the part I underlined.  I concur with the Supreme Court's opinion.  I don't think I will change your mind.  I'm explaining why I believe what I believe.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-22-2015, 12:43 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: True, but don't liberals want to do the exact same thing? They have a moral code on issues such as abortion, gun rights and gay marriage, and they want to force it down everyone's throats just the same as conservatives want to push their moral standards. It goes both ways. If it didn't, conservatives would run this country. Last I checked, abortion was legal, gay marriage is legal, marijuana is being legalized and guns have more and more restrictions.

Perhaps conservatives aren't aggressive enough?

Why should the government ban gay marriage?  Most of what I (and probably you) was taught about marijuana is false.  I'm not aware of any medicinal applications for alcohol like I am for marijuana.  Some of the mandatory minimums related to marijuana are ridiculous compared to other felonies.  I've never had an problem buying a gun.  Have you?  My father, the felon, wasn't allowed to own a gun.