Lamborghini costs an arm and a leg :(

[onejayhawk]

I'm not the one accusing other people of essentially being murderers now am i?

No. You accuse them of different crimes. Same song, different verse.

J

 

[useless]

No. You accuse them of different crimes. Same song, different verse.

J

Nope, not the same. If someone's being bigoted then i will them out for it, but i can't be accused of supporting murder when i don't support murder.

 

[onejayhawk]

I think that Tigraines doesn't attend your criticism of the video because he doesn't believe you've watched it. It would maybe be different if you watched it and could point out the disingenuous editing.

Their organization irritated me, because the early videos were clearly edited to incense and miscommunicate facts. But the longer videos do contain seeds of why people might be legit concerned. But they clearly wanted uninformed yowling to dominate the conversation.

This is political discourse. That much is given.

Nope, not the same. If someone's being bigoted then i will them out for it, but i can't be accused of supporting murder when i don't support murder.

I did say it was a different verse. Should I tell you that you seem the opposite side of the same coin? Would that be outing?

J

 

[useless]

Ah yes the old "you're intolerant of my intolerance" shtick.

 

[onejayhawk]

Ah yes the old "you're intolerant of my intolerance" shtick.

Half right. Drop everything from "of" on.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

Eh, profit is a slippery word. Accountants can make profit loss or loss profit. Executives of non-profit organizations can roll around in grotesque stacks of cash from immense wages. I don't trust the word profit. I've never seen any compelling evidence that anyone else should either. I trust more in the word sale. Sale "at cost" is still sale. The motivations are approximately the same.

Kinda, yeah. The majority of us operate that way (since we don't see the profit generated from our labor). But corporately it makes a big difference. Do the sales end up subsidizing other PP services? Does it create implicit incentives at the wrong contact-points? Etc.

Though I suspect PP might be phasing out fetal tissue transfer. It's a victory and a loss, I guess, for pro-life agitators.

 

[onejayhawk]

Kinda, yeah. The majority of us operate that way (since we don't see the profit generated from our labor). But corporately it makes a big difference. Do the sales end up subsidizing other PP services? Does it create implicit incentives at the wrong contact-points? Etc.

Though I suspect PP might be phasing out fetal tissue transfer. It's a victory and a loss, I guess, for pro-life agitators.

It's a victory.

They may have overplayed the hand, but PP was definitely caught with it's hand in the cookie jar. Those that deny any wrongdoing are exposed as deniers. What this does is crack the facade of respectability.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

It's only really a victory from the Prolife side if it somehow removes their incentive to provide abortions. That's really just an unmeasurable part. I'm quite okay with measures making sure incentives aren't broken.

Now, I know I don't 'get it', but there's a balance to be had from the benefits of medical research vs. the idea that someone is getting paid. I commonly cite ~25 weeks as the limit before which sentience cannot occur, and that knowledge would be literally impossible to have without the research done on fetal tissue. So them now refraining from donating the tissue is a real harm in my eyes.

 

[Farm Boy]

The idea that somebody is being paid doesn't end with the cash. The cash just brings it to the tacky fore and makes it more visible. If society benefits from the procedure then the focus just shifts back to the Báthoryian nature of life extension.

 

[El_Machinae]

The idea that somebody is being paid doesn't end with the cash. The cash just brings it to the tacky fore and makes it more visible. If society benefits from the procedure then the focus just shifts back to the Báthoryian nature of life extension.

It's true. And I understand that it offends. I just don't actually get the offense.

I fully agree that the compensation for the 'costs' should be totally dissociated from the implicit pressure to recommend abortions, society is full of wonky incentives, and we want to excise them.

But then there's the tissue itself. There're the two routes it could take - it could be treated as sacred, and disposed of with 'dignity' (whatever that means, cultures vary). Or the tissue could be used for a larger purpose, to get some good out of it. These two routes are just at odds with each other.

The analogy I heard is like a family's dog getting hit by a car. Family A sadly brings it inside, and then eats it so that they can donate that meal's budget. Family B sadly takes it out back and buries it with a ceremony. Both sides feel a bit weird about what the other family does.

 

[Farm Boy]

Let's put a measure of hope in the skin-derived partial minibrains then, eh?

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, for sure. Now, they're slightly different tools, and have very different costs. Fetal tissue is way cheaper, but waaaaay harder to purify into its component cells. I never liked working with fetal tissue, and that's mainly because some of the staff found it disconcerting (I sympathize, even if it doesn't bother me). The differentiated cells were much more labour intensive in many ways. But the techniques will get better.

I'd have to say that my exposure to cell biology is a major reason why I so commonly refer to scratched skin cells in these discussions. I see potential for human life all the time, and its why I needed to rethink the heuristics I was raised with.