More than half the 112 anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland didn't even vote Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3938928/More-ha

[bcking 3,157]

Well he has already said he is ok with gay and transgender issues.

As for abortion I think it's pretty settled

I am not a one issue voter. I pick the one I align with the most.

Immigration reform, Bring jobs back to the USA, support of the constitution and justices that support the constitution were much more important to me.

When asked whatkind of judges they would appoint to the court Hillary prattle on about a bunch of agendas. Trump said judges that supported the constitution

Sounds reasonable. I try not to be a "one issue voter" either. For me there were just too many issues I was concerned about and didn't align with Trump on, that I couldn't overlook what issues he may have had a slim potential to win me over on.

I think there is a real risk of abortions going back to individual states, and I fear the limitations that will put on women having to travel long distances for it to be done safely. Like women in Ireland going to the GB right now, only in some situations it will be many times the distance.

I think there are still issues for the LGBQT population that aren't settled, and I don't think Trump aligns with me on their rights.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I think that Trump, like many who have run before him, said whatever he thought it would take to get elected. I also think he will begin to realize, as all who have gone before, there is less he is able to do as president than he would like.

There needs be no "gay rights". There are human rights. As long as there are equal rights for all humans, all is well. I think the whole gay marriage issue blew up and is blowing over, as time passes. Then again, I don't have any close gay friends, so I may be out of touch with the progress on that front. We have had one or two posters here, perhaps they can tell us better how they are faring.

The pro-choice discussion has already been done here. I think a woman should have a choice, though I still have issues (personally) with someone using abortion as a contraceptive method. Not sure how prevalent that is, though one poster said he/she knew a woman who had a few. I also proposed that for women who choose an abortion, the proceeds from sales of baby parts be used to pay for the procedure, not putting any of the financial burden on tax payers or others who are (better) insured.

Illegal immigration certainly needs work. It's a slippery slope, and I am sure there will be some unpopular choices that will have to be made for it to be in any way effective. Then again, if being president were easy, there would be more applicants, I guess.

Sounds reasonable. I try not to be a "one issue voter" either. For me there were just too many issues I was concerned about and didn't align with Trump on, that I couldn't overlook what issues he may have had a slim potential to win me over on.

I think there is a real risk of abortions going back to individual states, and I fear the limitations that will put on women having to travel long distances for it to be done safely. Like women in Ireland going to the GB right now, only in some situations it will be many times the distance.

I think there are still issues for the LGBQT population that aren't settled, and I don't think Trump aligns with me on their rights.

[smilesammich 10,727]

The pro-choice discussion has already been done here. I think a woman should have a choice, though I still have issues (personally) with someone using abortion as a contraceptive method. Not sure how prevalent that is, though one poster said he/she knew a woman who had a few. I also proposed that for women who choose an abortion, the proceeds from sales of baby parts be used to pay for the procedure, not putting any of the financial burden on tax payers or others who are (better) insured.

oh my. please stahp. "used baby parts" none of that mess of a statement is factually sound.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Keep believing that if you want to. Obviously, early-term organs aren't much use, except perhaps for medical students. Not sure about that. But later term? Yes, the organs are viable. Full term, obviously they are viable, and in high demand.

oh my. please stahp. "used baby parts" none of that mess of a statement is factually sound.

[bcking 3,157]

Keep believing that if you want to. Obviously, early-term organs aren't much use, except perhaps for medical students. Not sure about that. But later term? Yes, the organs are viable. Full term, obviously they are viable, and in high demand.

1. There is no respectable medical school I know of that does any anatomy on recently acquired fetal products of conception. I interviewed at 12, attended one, did residency at another and worked at two. It doesn't happen.

2. There is no such thing as a term abortion. There are term fetal losses, but they aren't abortions. Recovery of those organs, if it happens, requires consent from the parents. It would not happen for use in donation very often as the pathology leading to the demise would likely prevent them from being used (except perhaps retina). For use in "science" would also require consent from parents and in my experience it never involved the "sale" of anything. They are donated. I work in neonatology btw.

Planned parenthood I have no personal experience with. Any abortion at any term if done anywhere I've worked would always require consent from parents to do anything.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

The issue with the whole PP selling parts thing wasn't about the fact they sell parts. The issue was whether or not they were (or should be) making a profit doing so. At $25-100 per fetus, I don't really see them making a killing. (Pun intended)

Not sure where you work nor interviewed, but if you are really in the medical field, surely you have heard of tissue research?

Edited November 17, 2016 by LFEHFN

[Teddy B 17,252]

Something tells me class is now in session.

[Dakine10 5,452]

The issue with the whole PP selling parts thing wasn't about the fact they sell parts. The issue was whether or not they were (or should be) making a profit doing so. At $25-100 per fetus, I don't really see them making a killing. (Pun intended)

Not sure where you work nor interviewed, but if you are really in the medical field, surely you have heard of tissue research?

[bcking 3,157]

The issue with the whole PP selling parts thing wasn't about the fact they sell parts. The issue was whether or not they were (or should be) making a profit doing so. At $25-100 per fetus, I don't really see them making a killing. (Pun intended)

Not sure where you work nor interviewed, but if you are really in the medical field, surely you have heard of tissue research?

Yes of course. I was addressing medical schools. As in for training. Yes they are used in research but not in training. And for research they need consent. They can't just take it without asking. Again I have no experience directly with Planned Parenthood but I don't see how their rules would be much different. It is a law in every state that tissue donation of any time, including fetal tissue, requires consent.

It's also a federal law that you can profit from donations. You can CHARGE but charging doesn't equal profit. Charge - Cost = Profit. The costs are high to donate. Again I haven't looked that much into the issue specifically with Planned Parenthood but just the fact that they charge or take money for it doesn't mean they are profiting.

They question of whether they should be profiting from it is not a question for me. They shouldn't. There is a federal law saying they shouldn't. That doesn't mean they shouldn't charge or take payments. In fine that they take payments, they just can't go towards profits. Like I said I don't know enough details regarding whether they really don't profit. If there was concrete evidence that they were, then they should be punished and it should change.

Edited November 17, 2016 by bcking

[bcking 3,157]

Coincidentally I'm actually now sitting in a lecture at my hospital reviewing our organ donation process with our OPO (Organ Procurement Organisation).

[Rob L 3,811]

Look for Roe Vs Wade to be overturned after Ginsburn dies or retires. It will revert back to the states choice

Justice Ginsburg ( with a g) will probably outlast some of the men on the court. She is pretty tough.

[bcking 3,157]

Justice Ginsburg ( with a g) will probably outlast some of the men on the court. She is pretty tough.

MarkPerry is likely right though if she does pass away.

It will revert back to states choice, and then what we will end up having is some states that support it, help fund it and help provide it as an option for women. Other states won't. That will create a situation where more women will A. Travel long distances to have it done, B. Have it done in places that aren't as regulated or safe but are closer/they can afford or C. Not get it done when they felt it was the best option for them, and then they will have to face the difficulty of caring for (or giving up) the child when they are born. None of those options are all that good for the woman, for the unborn child or for the state.

Interesting thing I learned in my conference (which I didn't know) - There is a group transplanting neonatal kidneys into adults in California and are actually quite succesful (and early data actually shows potentially more succesful than adult kidney transplants). Granted they are term newborn kidneys, not preterm/fetal kidneys.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I believe I also read about some other organs being harvested and grown to full size outside the womb. Once perfected (if?) this should go a long ways towards organ availability.

And on your other post... I wasn't arguing about the profit part. Of course, they cannot profit from it, though it was alleged they were doing so. (Perhaps due to the high salaries of the higher folks who work there?) But in another discussion, I mentioned using funds from harvesting baby parts going towards the cost of abortions for those who cannot afford them. And I was boo-hoo'ed because PP doesn't harvest baby parts. Nuh-uh, can't happen. Well, I disagree. I believe it DOES happen.

And as for the consent part, never argued that point, either. But do you really think a woman who is lying on her bed, about to abort the baby within, she really cares about what she is signing? I suspect she just wants to get it over. I am fairly certain if I didn't want a baby, I wouldn't care what they did with the remains after they were out of me. But maybe I am insensitive.

[smilesammich 10,727]

[bcking 3,157]

I believe I also read about some other organs being harvested and grown to full size outside the womb. Once perfected (if?) this should go a long ways towards organ availability.

And on your other post... I wasn't arguing about the profit part. Of course, they cannot profit from it, though it was alleged they were doing so. (Perhaps due to the high salaries of the higher folks who work there?) But in another discussion, I mentioned using funds from harvesting baby parts going towards the cost of abortions for those who cannot afford them. And I was boo-hoo'ed because PP doesn't harvest baby parts. Nuh-uh, can't happen. Well, I disagree. I believe it DOES happen.

And as for the consent part, never argued that point, either. But do you really think a woman who is lying on her bed, about to abort the baby within, she really cares about what she is signing? I suspect she just wants to get it over. I am fairly certain if I didn't want a baby, I wouldn't care what they did with the remains after they were out of me. But maybe I am insensitive.

Yes they harvest. Yes they charge for it. Yes sometimes harvesting will require "prolonging" support in an effort to maintain viability (for tissue not really, but organs yes). I don't know to what extent that happens with abortions but defintiely if an infant is going to be carried to term, but will not survive, but parents agree to organ donation, then the child may need to be kept alive long enough to coordinate proper harvesting and to avoid damage to the organs. They won't do that without the parents knowledge or consent though. Honestly that happens incredibly rarely as well (I've never personally been involved in a case). Yes/No on whether they make a profit because I really don't know either way. They aren't supposed to is all I know. If individual locations are manipulating it for a profit then of course those should be investigated, punished and closed if necessary. I don't believe there is a "systemic" issue with the organization as a whole however. No investigation has shown that there is as of yet.

As for whether the consent is truly "informed" consent. They are legally required to obtain informed consent by explaining to the woman what they will be doing etc... Does that mean the woman will really understand what she is hearing? No. It can't just be a piece of paper with no one actually talking about it. It can't just be a "Sign here, here and here" and without mentioning it one signature agrees to donation. It has to be informed consent which requires a discussion and opportunity to ask questions. Even with that though, people may not be truly "informed", but that is an issue in all aspects of medicine not just tissue donation. Does a lay person with little medication knowledge ever really acquire truly informed consent for any medical procedure? We do our best. I try to always have the person sort of "talk back" to me what they understand which is a good indicator of whether they took in the information. No technique is perfect though.