NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/52851

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 12.8 KB | 285 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:59:52 GMT
Lines: 274

Here is the third cycle in my e-mail corresponcence with Mark Cochran,
beginning with my letter replying to the one you saw in Cycle 2.

From nyikos Tue Dec 15 09:16:40 1992
Subject: Re: Lost Boy bugged by fetal tissue transplants.
To: [e-mail] (Merlin the Magician)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 9:15:34 EST
Cc: nyikos (Peter Nyikos)
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>; from "Merlin the Magician" at Dec 14, 92 11:31 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Status: OR

> >  These fetal tissue cultures will be
> > derived from fetal tissues, if they are ever developed. As long as
> > funding for these projects is cut off by the federal govt, though, I
> > would say it is not terribly likely that the techniques will be
> > perfected in this country. There are already several european centers
> > far ahead of us in this field.
> >
> > To which I reply:
> >
> > To the best of my knowledge, funding for this aspect of fetal tissue
> > research has never been curtailed.  The only things for which funding
> > was curtailed, as far as I know, were (1) experimentation on live
> > aborted human fetuses and (2) fetal tissue transplants.  And even (2)
> > is about to have its funding restored by executive order, courtesy of
> > Bill Clinton.
> >
> (1) There is no such thing as a "live aborted human fetus".

Tell that to Dr. George Tiller, aka "Killer Tiller of Wichita," who in
his instructions given to women preparing to abort says: "There is also
the possibility of the live birth of the fetus and that the patient
will be responsible as a parent for medical care rendered which will
include all steps necessary in the judgment of the physician to maintain
life, including the possibility of the transfer of the fetus to a neo-natal
intensive care facility."                   ^^^^^

[When does this character get off calling the aborted live human being
a fetus??]

Yesterday evening I posted MEET GEORGE TILLER, LATE-TERM ABORTIONIST, Part 1.

BTW what would you call the entities described in Suzanne Rini's _Beyond
Abortion: a Chronicle of Fetal Experimentation_, p. 32, item 15?  Here
is the item, in toto:

    Experiments on the brains of unborn infants at the University
    of Rochester Medical Center were reported in _Science_, August
    27, 1971.  Researchers removed brain sections from babies
    of ten to nineteen weeks gestation, and kept the brain sections
    alive for five months, subjecting them to exhaustive tests?

[Did you bristle at the words "unborn infants" and "babies"?  So, what
would you call these entities if they are alive outside the womb?  Or
does it not count if they are alive prior to viability?  If you say
a sperm cell or a cancer is human life, why not these entities?]

Nothing illegal about any of the above, even during the Reagan-Bush
administration, just not federally funded.  (I wonder whether the State
of New York has funded such research during the Bush "ban".)

> (2) If we don't do the experimental tissue transplants, to demonstrate
> a need for the cultures, what possible reason whould there be to
> develope the technology to provide the tissue cultures?

In case you did not know, experimental tissue transplants have been going
on in the USA all along.  Just not federally funded.  As for the "possible
reason" look at (1) the election of Clinton (2) the narrow margin by which
the House failed to override the Bush veto and (3) [worst case scenario,
from your viewpoint] if no funding is ever approved for transplants from
elective abortions, the cost can still come down if those cultures came
from ectopic pregnancies, etc.

> (3) Where do you think we get the tissue for the cultures originally
> if not from aborted fetuses?

I thought you said they came from cancers.  OK, let's play it your way:

The bigger the fetus, the more tissue there is.  But much of
it is unusable because of the way most abortions are carried out.

> (4) Hurray for Bill Clinton.

I grieve for all the women who delay their abortions until the second
trimester so there will be more tissue and larger organs (perhaps suitable
for wholesale transplantation into WANTED newborns), and volunteer for
more invasive techniques so the tissue can be recovered in usable form.

But you, what is your attitude?  Would you say hurray to these women too,
and to the society which lets them view what they are doing as an unselfish
humanitarian gesture?

Peter Nyikos

PS Feel free to post any of this, as long as the meaning of what I say
is not distorted by selective deletions.  Ray Fischer has done this
sort of thing to me on this very issue.  I put in a rationale for using
the word "cannibalization" for the transplantation of tissues and organs
from entities that are killed to provide them, and he deleted the entire
rationale, leaving in only the words:

"I say it is cannibalization for body parts, and I say to hell with it."

To which he responded, "...Do you want _more_ _rope_?"

I'll post quite a bit on the subject in the upcoming months.  I might
as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb. :-)

________________________End of my letter__________________________

Actually, Fischer wrote "..._more_ rope?".  I was working from memory.

My memory was also faulty about the cancers.  I had forgotten that
the cancer cell cultures were never intended for transplantation.
Mark, on the other hand, blames it on my reading comprehension below,
showing how he is catching on to the favorite topics of talk.abortion
flamers.

From: [e-mail] (Merlin the Magician)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lost Boy bugged by fetal tissue transplants.
To: nyikos@milo (Peter Nyikos)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 18:54:11 EST
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>; from "Peter Nyikos" at Dec 15, 92 9:15 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Status: OR

> > (1) There is no such thing as a "live aborted human fetus".
>
> Tell that to Dr. George Tiller, aka "Killer Tiller of Wichita," who in
> his instructions given to women preparing to abort says: "There is also
> the possibility of the live birth of the fetus and that the patient
> will be responsible as a parent for medical care rendered which will
> include all steps necessary in the judgment of the physician to maintain
> life, including the possibility of the transfer of the fetus to a neo-natal
> intensive care facility."                   ^^^^^
>
Medically, once it is delivered, it is no .longer a fetus. It is a
baby, or a neonate, not a fetus.
Further, if the outcome is a life birth, it is not an abortion, it is
early termination of pregnancy by induced labor.
And even Dr. Tiller (despite the ridiculous name you try to tag on
him) does not kill any live births. It seems quite clear to me that if
he terminates a pregnancy early by induction of labor, resulting in
live birth (which he does oly for valid medical reasons, despite what
your propoganda claims) every effort is made to save the life of the
neonate. Were he doing otherwise, he would be guilty of violating any
number of laws.

> [When does this character get off calling the aborted live human being
> a fetus??]
>
I have no idea when he does anything, nor do I particularly care if
you and he cae to argue semantics.

> Yesterday evening I posted MEET GEORGE TILLER, LATE-TERM ABORTIONIST, Part 1.
>
I noticed. Certainly one of the finest examples of biased journalism
I've ever had the misfortune to peruse.

> BTW what would you call the entities described in Suzanne Rini's _Beyond
> Abortion: a Chronicle of Fetal Experimentation_, p. 32, item 15?  Here
> is the item, in toto:
>
>     Experiments on the brains of unborn infants at the University
>     of Rochester Medical Center were reported in _Science_, August
>     27, 1971.  Researchers removed brain sections from babies
>     of ten to nineteen weeks gestation, and kept the brain sections
>     alive for five months, subjecting them to exhaustive tests?
>
> [Did you bristle at the words "unborn infants" and "babies"?  So, what
> would you call these entities if they are alive outside the womb?  Or
> does it not count if they are alive prior to viability?  If you say
> a sperm cell or a cancer is human life, why not these entities?]
>
I call them tissue specimens. What do you call them?
I do say that a sperm cell and a cancer cell are human life. They are
alive, and they are genetically human. I also don't give a rodents
posteror portion if they are destroyed. They may be human, but they
certainly are not people.
What bearing on current discussions do you think that experiements
done over 20 years ago have?

> > (2) If we don't do the experimental tissue transplants, to demonstrate
> > a need for the cultures, what possible reason whould there be to
> > develope the technology to provide the tissue cultures?
>
> In case you did not know, experimental tissue transplants have been going
> on in the USA all along.  Just not federally funded.  As for the "possible
> reason" look at (1) the election of Clinton (2) the narrow margin by which
> the House failed to override the Bush veto and (3) [worst case scenario,
> from your viewpoint] if no funding is ever approved for transplants from
> elective abortions, the cost can still come down if those cultures came
> from ectopic pregnancies, etc.
>
I think you are missing the point.
Go back and read this again. You don't seem to understand it at all.

> > (3) Where do you think we get the tissue for the cultures originally
> > if not from aborted fetuses?
>
> I thought you said they came from cancers.  OK, let's play it your way:
>
I think you have a bit of trouble comprehending what I am writing.
I stated quite plainly and even repeated once already that tissue
cultures from cancers are used in cancer research, not fetal tissue
research. The cuture techniques are similar, but not identical. The
techniques used to maintain the cancer cultures are not adequate to
maintain fetal tissue cutlres in a state suitable for transplant
experimentation.
Do you understand now?
Cancer tissue cultures = cancer research
(Potential) fetal tissue cultures = fetal tissue research.

> The bigger the fetus, the more tissue there is.  But much of
> it is unusable because of the way most abortions are carried out.
>
Congratulations. You have stated the obvious extremly well. What is
your point?

> > (4) Hurray for Bill Clinton.
>
> I grieve for all the women who delay their abortions until the second
> trimester so there will be more tissue and larger organs (perhaps suitable
> for wholesale transplantation into WANTED newborns), and volunteer for
> more invasive techniques so the tissue can be recovered in usable form.
>
Would you care to produce proof that such a thing has ever  happened?
Can you document any cases of women who have delayed their abortions
for the reasons you claim?

> But you, what is your attitude?  Would you say hurray to these women too,
> and to the society which lets them view what they are doing as an unselfish
> humanitarian gesture?
>
I would say that it is their decision what they do with their own
body.
I also say that it is much that any usable tissues (despite what you
say, organs would not be usable under current practices) be used.

> PS Feel free to post any of this, as long as the meaning of what I say
> is not distorted by selective deletions.  Ray Fischer has done this
> sort of thing to me on this very issue.  I put in a rationale for using
> the word "cannibalization" for the transplantation of tissues and organs
> from entities that are killed to provide them, and he deleted the entire
> rationale, leaving in only the words:
>
Feel free to post anything you like. I'll not post your stuff for you.

What is your position, then, on harvesting organs from neonates with
no chance of survival?
As an example, consider the fairly recent media case in which an
anencephalic newborn's parents wished to donate any usable organs to
infants on the waiting lists.
The NRL groups took it to court and prevented the transplants on the
basis that the infant was not yet dead. Technically true, since it
(like most anenchephalics that are not stillborn) did have a brain
stem. of course, it had zero chance of survival.
Would you have supported the parents right to donate the organs?

_________________________End of Mark's letter______________________

A quick answer to the last question, saving my rebuttals to Mark Cochran's
allegations for later:

Not fully, until the baby was legally dead.  After that, no problem.

A non-fatal organ donation, such as that of one kidney, would have been
acceptable to me.  Ditto small blood donations, etc.

Peter Nyikos