Harvesting human beings in the future?

[IHaveTheGift]

As screwed up as we are that we do not even care what happens to aborted life, are we just a few steps away from reasoning that we should harvest aborted babies for their cells, DNA, and body parts?

After all, that seems better than what is going on now.
UK hospitals accused of incinerating aborted fetuses alongside trash - CBS News

 

[Musty]

Being pro-choice doesn't mean not caring about the life of the aborted child so your first assumption is false. Personally it involves taking into account the life of the mother as well though I'm sure others have their own reasons.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's no energy content in fetuses (because of the high moisture content), so I wouldn't
worry that government will harvest humans as fuel. It reminds me of the ridiculously
stupid premise of the movie "The Matrix".....cold fusion indeed!

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Being pro-choice doesn't mean not caring about the life of the aborted child so your first assumption is false. Personally it involves taking into account the life of the mother as well though I'm sure others have their own reasons.

You're not even on topic, and personally, you help prove my point.
You try to make excuses for what happens to the aborted life by claiming the mothers health(reasons) is a factor?

There's no energy content in fetuses (because of the high moisture content), so I wouldn't
worry that government will harvest humans as fuel. It reminds me of the ridiculously
stupid premise of the movie "The Matrix".....cold fusion indeed!

Huh?
You need to reread the OP, this isn't about harvesting for fuel
Even though, it seemed "moral" by some people, at least the ones caught to do just that.
This is about the future.
Eventually, science will be "allowed" to "use" the aborted fetus for "science"
Its already starting.
The fact that people find it moral to burn the fetus for fuel now, because no law stopped them, that tells me all bets are off on what that fetus means.

 

[Falvlun]

As screwed up as we are that we do not even care what happens to aborted life, are we just a few steps away from reasoning that we should harvest aborted babies for their cells, DNA, and body parts?

After all, that seems better than what is going on now.
UK hospitals accused of incinerating aborted fetuses alongside trash - CBS News

Minus the anti-abortion sentiment, this is an interesting idea.

If the fetus is going to aborted anyway, why not allow the mother to donate it to help save some other child?

I admit, I do have a twinge of ick in regards to the idea, but as long as it is not coerced or for money, I'm not really sure what the problem would be.

EDIT:
Ok, here could be a problem: People could conceive babies with the intention of aborting them to provide care for an already existing child.

 

[Revoltingest]

Huh?
You need to reread the OP, this isn't about harvesting for fuel
Even though, it seemed "moral" by some people, at least the ones caught to do just that.
This is about the future.
Eventually, science will be "allowed" to "use" the aborted fetus for "science"
Its already starting.
The fact that people find it moral to burn the fetus for fuel now, because no law stopped them, that tells me all bets are off on what that fetus means.

I inferred that from the OP plus the article about incineration for energy generation.
Oh, well....I get it wrong quite often here.
Wait....you did say that in the last sentence.
Fetuses make poor fuel, since there's a net energy loss.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

As screwed up as we are that we do not even care what happens to aborted life, are we just a few steps away from reasoning that we should harvest aborted babies for their cells, DNA, and body parts?

After all, that seems better than what is going on now.
UK hospitals accused of incinerating aborted fetuses alongside trash - CBS News

Why have useful and valuable biological material go to waste? People should certainly have the option of donating their biological material for the betterment of medical science, just as people have the option of donating their organs.

 

[dust1n]

So, what, dumb them in a grave like the old days?

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Minus the anti-abortion sentiment, this is an interesting idea.

If the fetus is going to aborted anyway, why not allow the mother to donate it to help save some other child?

I admit, I do have a twinge of ick in regards to the idea, but as long as it is not coerced or for money, I'm not really sure what the problem would be.

EDIT:
Ok, here could be a problem: People could conceive babies with the intention of aborting them to provide care for an already existing child.

Yah, and this a reality, maybe not in my lifetime, but yah...

Completely off topic and should have been my OP, but never the less;
One is not allowed to "offer" an organ, to help save a life.
People have tried and are shut completely down.
There is no website to "get" an organ from someone willing to part with it, since they have "two" and can spare one.

You cant even do it for free, offer an organ...
Yah if you know the person, they let you.

Yah, way off topic now, but it still goes back to harvesting humans.

So, what, dumb them in a grave like the old days?

so, do we harvest them instead?

 

[Jainarayan]

As screwed up as we are that we do not even care what happens to aborted life, are we just a few steps away from reasoning that we should harvest aborted babies for their cells, DNA, and body parts?

An aborted fetus would not have any developed and usable body parts or organs for another person. Stem cells can be harvested from umbilical cords and embryos, so there is no need to look for an aborted fetus. DNA that might be harvested from an aborted fetus, even if it were inserted into a virus for gene therapy would probably useless because unless the fetus had an identical twin who went full term and needed such therapy, there's no point.

 

[Jainarayan]

One is not allowed to "offer" an organ, to help save a life.
People have tried and are shut completely down.
There is no website to "get" an organ from someone willing to part with it, since they have "two" and can spare one.

Kidneys and bone marrow can be donated by living persons to someone who needs it. Almost any organ can be donated by a deceased person. However, organs and body parts cannot be bought or sold.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

An aborted fetus would not have any developed and usable body parts or organs for another person. Stem cells can be harvested from umbilical cords and embryos, so there is no need to look for an aborted fetus. DNA that might be harvested from an aborted fetus, even if it were inserted into a virus for gene therapy would probably useless because unless the fetus had an identical twin who went full term and needed such therapy, there's no point.

I know it's my own fault for creating such a thread, but my concept goes well beyond what we do with fetus's now.
What if late term abortions can "save the fetus" to help science?

Kidneys and bone marrow can be donated by living persons to someone who needs it. Almost any organ can be donated by a deceased person. However, organs and body parts cannot be bought or sold.

Why not?
Look at all the people that die from not getting, at the least, bone marrow from one of the millions willing to give them some?

 

[Falvlun]

Why not?
Look at all the people that die from not getting, at the least, bone marrow from one of the millions willing to give them some?

Because you then get poor people choosing to sell their body parts for money, or you get people killing people and stealing their organs for money. Not good.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Because you then get poor people choosing to sell their body parts for money, or you get people killing people and stealing their organs for money. Not good.

You think that will never change?

 

[Falvlun]

You think that will never change?

Not quite sure what you mean.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Not quite sure what you mean.

That we will ever begin to harvest humans?

 

[Falvlun]

That we will ever begin to harvest humans?

I hope not.

But I think the word "harvest" is a little loaded. That implies to me that we are growing humans specifically to obtain something from them. We don't do that now, and I don't think that's what would be going on if something from an aborted fetus was salvageable.

I would think that growing humans just to harvest their organs or whatever would be grossly unethical. I can imagine dystopian futures in which this might occur, but I don't think it is likely.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

I hope not.

But I think the word "harvest" is a little loaded. That implies to me that we are growing humans specifically to obtain something from them. We don't do that now, and I don't think that's what would be going on if something from an aborted fetus was salvageable.

I would think that growing humans just to harvest their organs or whatever would be grossly unethical. I can imagine dystopian futures in which this might occur, but I don't think it is likely.

I hope not, as well, but I tend to wonder what does on behind closed doors...

 

[dust1n]

so, do we harvest them instead?

It would be harvesting if the institutions that used the biomass for energy purposely caused miscarriages and abortions in people. It would be unethical if such information about what might happen with biomedical remains were concealed for someone before having a miscarriage treatment or abortion there.

But beyond that, put bodies in the ground, or utilize the same bodies to benefit the living in some manner or another, I'd go with the latter.

Certainly you aren't against people willing donating organs after death, or donating their own body for medical research? Than I don't really see the difference for parties that consent.

 

[Jainarayan]

I know it's my own fault for creating such a thread, but my concept goes well beyond what we do with fetus's now.
What if late term abortions can "save the fetus" to help science?

There's nothing wrong with the thread or the idea, I'm just saying that from my p.o.v. as it is now, it's a non-feasible, non-useful non-issue. That could change, however. If and when late term abortions are ever permitted (gods forbid), science may be far enough along to do what you're suggesting. I don't think we can know just yet.

Why not?
Look at all the people that die from not getting, at the least, bone marrow from one of the millions willing to give them some?

I don't know the reasons for the laws, but I'm sure it has something to do with medical ethics. Consider that a billionaire might pay quintuple the amount for a liver that a blue collar working schlub couldn't even dream of paying.

It used to be that starving college students would sell blood at one blood bank one month, then to another blood bank the next month, and back and forth. You had to wait one month before donating again to the same blood bank. My high school chemistry teacher did that. She said she and her friends were anemic, but at least they had a little money. Blood banks stopped paying for blood long ago.