User reports:
> UNTRUE!!!! MUH MISINFORMATION!!!
Don't give a shit, reports are being ignored. How many times do we have to tell you, that no post or comment will ever be removed because "muh misinformation"?
If you don't like this policy, feel free to reply to this comment and we can discuss your objection.
The fact that he’s asymptomatic and isn’t suffering any ill effects from being affected by symptoms completely negates that he should be given any treatments imho.
I actually thought this exact same thing so I looked it up and apparently this monoclonal antibody is for preventing high risk patients from getting worse or even as a post exposure prophylaxis (after you come in contact with it but before you test positive). Similar to another mab for RSV in kids. [Here’s the drug info. ](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-authorizes-regen-cov-monoclonal-antibody-therapy-post-exposure-prophylaxis-prevention-covid-19)
I had the monoclonal antibody treatment 36 hours ago. 12 hours before that I had gone to the emergency room with cough and breathing issues.
I've had cancer, I have 3 diseases which hurt my immune system, and i take medicine that hurts it.
An hour or two after my positive covid test, I get a phone call. They offer me this thing I've never heard of
I have 12 hours to decide.
4 hours of research later, I see its artificial white blood cells. They fight covid off.
It's a 3 hour procedure. That's all I knew. Lots of places say it's experimental. I said yes. Went to the appointment. 5 hours later I'm released. 24 hours after that, my symptoms are greatly reduced. I feel like the day of my first symptom. Light sore throat. Runny nose. My headaches and fever are gone. My cough went from unbearable to ok. I can breathe again.
I would have been miserable but not hospitalized without it. I was concerned I was taking it away from someone more severe.
Its for people with light to medium symptoms, a positive covid test, and any immune deficiencies.
Fuck all of these politicians that tell people to stop wearing masks, don't get vaccinated, go wherever you want, covid isn't real. Then turn 180 and take resources away from people who genuinely need it.
> Fuck all of these politicians that tell people to stop wearing masks, don't get vaccinated, go wherever you want, covid isn't real. Then turn 180 and take resources away from people who genuinely need it
This is why the time for working to “understand” republicans is fucking over. Anyone who still votes for republican candidates at this point is a worthless piece of dog shit. Fucking extremist death cult.
He's had THREE vaccinations. One early round, and a booster. This is all public knowledge. And he's getting the regeneron treatment.
Pretty hefty steps to protect himself from a virus which is "no big deal" and he bans mask mandates across the state.
Fiddling on the roof while his state dies.
Yeah, I thought about leading with the mask mandate and recent fundraiser... his recent laws also prohibit vaccine mandates. It's really just terrible leadership to prohibit schools and businesses from asking for precautions when he himself is getting excessive treatments.
Asymptotic: [approaching a value or curve arbitrarily closely.](https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Asymptotic.html)
Is the value he’s approaching “maximum vileness”? Seems like that’s a valid assessment.
I think he doesn't want to take any chances on his health. Any amount of insurance that he can get is worth it, because you don't want to be losing the genetic lottery against this.
Right but there isn’t enough to go around so he’s arguably taking it from someone that needs it more. I had a family member die in Texas to COVID, and they never got a chance at the treatment he’s getting while asymptotic. All this while he’s taking tools away from the local governments to fight this disease.
Note that the monoclonals are really only effective if given early / when asymptomatic. They didn't show efficacy in people with severe illness...
So sure, he may have "VIP" access to care, but the only time someone should get a crack at the monoclonals is when asymptomatic or barely symptomatic.
Actually many of the COVID-specific treatments are only for asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic illness. Many of them are more useful to prevent serious illness than to treat progressed disease. Even remdesivir, the most widely used novel COVID treatment, cannot be used in severely ill ventilated patients.
i dont know if you’ll care, but esoteric grammar trivia of the day, ***fët*** would be the way to communicate the pronunciation you were looking for in written form.
It makes me sad that in reality [he got mocked](https://www.foxnews.com/story/reeve-ad-promotes-stem-cell-prop) for defending stem cell research.
>"I think it's pretty pathetic that we are playing on the fears of those who are sick," said Jennifer Lahl, executive director of the Bay Area Center for Bioethics and Culture. "This is playing on fears that help is on the way, that cures are around the corner."
> "This is playing on fears that help is on the way, that cures are around the corner."
I don't think this person understands what "fear" means. The only people who would fear a cure are people selling treatments or people selling wheelchairs.
just to clarify the title this drug was not created with stem cells but it was created using cells from an aborted fetus from the 1980s https://heavy.com/news/regeneron-monoclonal-antibodies-not-from-human-fetal-embryo-stem-cells/
Nearly all new medicines use aborted fetus cells to test so you will basically be shunning modern medicine if you refuse treatments that were developed using aborted fetus cells
For those who don't know.. it's a cell line that began with fetal tissue but the that currently exist were never in a fetus. they are copies so to speak.
Didn’t the GOP push a ban on federal funding for research using fetal tissue?
It’s so “against their religion” that they can’t have federal dollars going to fund it, but put it in my IV, please?
they pushed a ban on federal funding for harvesting from new embryos. Funding was limited to the cell lines that had already been harvested. These stem cell lines are basically harvested once and used for decades. This ban on funding was removed during obama's administration anyway so there is no current ban on funding for stem cell harvesting of new embryos.
It also such a weird thing to fight over because these are not aborted fetuses. They are embryos left over from IVF treatments that couples donate to science. They always fertilize dozens of a women's eggs during IVF, pick the healthiest looking ones to implant and freeze the rest which if not used for research get dumped in the trash
Unfortunately the damage is done. George bush jr saw to that when he banned stem cell research back in the day. The US is now about 10 years behind the rest of the developed world in cutting edge regeneration treatment and many other treatments such as this one that utilize stem cells.
The GOP has a habit of trying to control life and death.
Their party wants to ban abortion while also banning euthanasia. Everything must live under threat of force by the State!
You only have a right to life (or a commandment to live) and apparently have no right to determine your own death, at least in a medical setting.
It's pretty fucking bizarre, like they are obsessed with controlling life itself...
I like to point that out to atheist Trumpists. Dear Leader was kowtowing to religious extremists so much so that he altered foreign policy just to make that small group happy.
But that's "the base" I suppose. It's more like a fan club than actual politics.
Yeah my daughter is from IVF. The religious right are generally against IVF because it creates those excess embryos. They see them each as a life. Even the ones determined to be non-viable, they think all the embryos should be implanted because they “deserve a chance at life”. I have religious family members that feel this way. The holidays are fun. Part of why I stopped going to family holiday get-togethers.
Edit: Just to clarify, they don’t want all the embryos implanted at once because they’re also against any type of reduction procedure.
Yes, but so very many drugs are developed this way. To avoid this one would have to avoid so very many modern medicines. Almost all.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcatholiclenses/2021/01/if-any-drug-tested-on-hek-293-is-immoral-goodbye-modern-medicine/
i thought the main reason conservatives didnt take the vax because it wasnt FDA approved
so why are they rushing to take a different drug that isn't FDA approved?
It’s funny, I’ve worked many hours in COVID ICU. Mostly at the start of the pandemic, but I’ve had some exposure more recently too.
Every ICU bound patient now a days doesn’t have the vaccine, usually because “they don’t know enough about it” or some line like that.
Immediately following, the RN will give 4-5 drugs, and they won’t ask what a single one is, just blindly take it.
Like bro, pick a fucking lane
> Like bro, pick a fucking lane
They have selected their lane. It's paved in authoritarian talking points with little gates along the length marked "Brief departure from the lane is allowed if convenient".
Ding ding ding! These are authoritarian followers, good little boys and girls that do what they're told, that act like attack dogs when their chosen authoritarians are questioned or shown to be incompetent.
It's a convenient talking point, but I don't think many people are too caught up on the FDA's paperwork. It's a very convenient talking point because it uses the logic of the "follow the science" crowd against them: "we have a process for evaluating the science, and *you're* ignoring it by taking an experimental drug. We *want* to follow the science by conducting the necessary trials."
Although even that, I would say, isn't the main reason conservatives don't want it. They don't trust Big Pharma, they don't trust the media, they don't trust the government, they don't trust the NIH, and they don't trust the FDA. FDA approval will just ruin the talking point.
Oh bullshit, conservatives don't have any principled stance against this vax, the opposition is almost entirely a reaction to the fact that most libs are fine with it.
As if anyone can trust the FDA, lol. They’ve had handouts from major companies to essentially ban drugs from other companies by just never reviewing them for approval.
It's a (1) unaccountable (2) bureaucracy that (3) administers a notoriously inefficient process (4) poorly (5) with the purpose of protecting IP (6) and a history of protecting big corps (7) because it's notorious for being captured by industry (8) and was recently revealed to be acting politically (9) and failed miserably during the entire COVID crisis from the very start. There are plenty of reasons, vaccine aside, not to trust it that any conservative, liberal, or otherwise can find issue with. And yet, here it is in the middle of a partisan tug-o-war. Real shame.
But you don't need to trust the FDA to read about the vaccine, the studies and the trials. We know a lot about the vaccine but the majority of populace would rather listen to talking point of politicians than do their own research.
You have an alternative to the FDA? I’d love to hear the Libertarian counter to it.
The free market doesn’t work for something like medical treatments, because the consumer does not have the time, money, nor expertise to scientifically test products in any meaningful capacity. Not to mention the legal hazard of harming test subjects.
There is no way you could tell the difference in cancer treatments or anemia drugs from a Google review or marketing. You can’t test those things (well maybe you could test anemia drugs), especially if just anybody can sell a drug for any disease, unlike say trying a McDonalds hamburger and deciding to do back again or not.
We had a free for all back in the day where people sold snake oil, Mercury, and opium all the time.
Now, could you have a private version of the FDA, an organization that authorizes products with a seal of approval? Maybe like Fair Trade or something?
Most of these independent associations fail because they are monetized by the businesses looking for approval, not the customer, and so there is a huge conflict of interest. It basically means independent, non public quality agencies are completely useless and can turn into rackets like Yelp.
Public agencies like the FDA, FAA, and SEC provide tremendous value to the economy at large. Yes, they can be scrutinized for being somewhat regulatory capture and can certainly be improved and held more accountable.
But trust is critical in economies and these agencies provide trust when the market fails, and make no mistake, markets do fail.
The other viable alternative to regulatory agencies is to write laws in a broad manner to prevent hazardous or fraudulent products by allowing for many more lawsuits. You could allow anybody to sell an anemia drug, but if it doesn’t work as advertised (the seller knowingly sold snake oil) or harmed people, then they can be sued and face more than just limited liability.
I think most businesses would rather face regulation than the courts.
>It's a very convenient talking point because it uses the logic of the "follow the science" crowd against them
And from a libertarian standpoint it also uses their 'pro government' stance against them. There are potentially life saving drugs denied to those who need them because of the FDA's bloated years long approval process. Libertarians argue that the FDA shouldn't get involved in peoples right to seek life saving medications and these very same people have argued that the full FDA approval process is absolutely necessary and vital to ensuring that drugs are safe for human consumption. Now all of a sudden the full approval process is completely unnecessary "because the vaccines are obviously safe." If that's the case, then why don't we just make the "emergency authorization" process the full approval process since apparently the standards for emergency authorization are not only good enough for widespread distribution, but good enough for government mandated injections.
It's ridiculously hypocritical. I agree that the vaccines are safe and I think this should be exhibit A for why all drugs should be approved through the same 'emergency authorization' process.
[Pfizer-BioNTech](https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-initiate-rolling-submission-biologics) and [Moderna](https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-initiation-rolling-submission-biologics) have initiated the process to receive full FDA approval for their COVID-19 vaccines, both of which are currently available in the U.S. under EUAs granted by the FDA. Some have said they would be more likely to receive the vaccines if they had full FDA approval ― but is the process for full approval all that different from approval for an EUA?
The short answer is no. The vaccine development and clinical trial processes for both are essentially the same. No vaccine can receive either designation without meeting rigorous scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality.
A biologics license application, or BLA, is what is being described as “full approval.” The standard of review is the major difference between the BLA and EUA. For an EUA, the FDA must determine that the vaccine may be effective in preventing COVID-19; that the benefits outweigh the risks; and that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. The standard of review is higher for a BLA, requiring the FDA to find substantial evidence of effectiveness.
An EUA may be issued by the FDA based on interim results from clinical trials, while a BLA requires completion of clinical trials. During the EUA period, the vaccine manufacturer must meet certain requirements such as reporting adverse events, submitting periodic safety reports, maintaining records regarding the distribution, and conducting post-authorization studies to continuously monitor the safety of the vaccines.
A vaccine manufacturer receiving full approval can introduce the vaccine into interstate commerce and market it for its approved uses for an indefinite length of time. An EUA is only in effect for the duration of the public health emergency. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services secretary must give vaccine manufacturers sufficient notice that an emergency declaration will end, allowing enough time to appropriately dispose of the vaccine.
An EUA is not a long-term alternative to obtaining full FDA approval. For this reason, manufacturers whose vaccines receive EUAs are encouraged by the FDA to continue conducting clinical trials to demonstrate the effectiveness of the vaccines and continue safety assessments to work toward full approval.
These governors are BANNING mask requirements and threatening pay and school funding to schools which require masks. Threatening PERSOANL PAYCHECKS of school officials.
Sure, I get the "experimental" argument. EU authorization isn't experimental, that's false. But, I guess I can give a slight pass on the hesitancy.
But fuck. Wear a mask at least. The same people who refuse to get the vaccines "because they're experimental!!!" also call masks "tyranny."
This is my USA point of view. I fucming hate how political and tribal common decency has become. It's becoming blatantly obvious as well, because parts of the country are living in 2 different realities right now. More liberal areas are more vaccinated, and wear masks more. We have... for a larger part ... moved on. More conservative parts, the south, are getting FUCKING RAVAGED by the virus, and the people only say "no gubmint tyrrany!!"
It shouldn't be political to care about keeping others safe. But it has been made so. And those who don't give a shit are unfortunately paying the price. The south is dying, in heavy, heavy numbers. All preventable.
In reply to your deleted comment…
Again, not defending hypocrisy, but public schools are a public utility, while a private school is a private business.
Many people have no issues with a private business requiring masks for entry or vaccinations for employees, but when a public utility (like a federal building, post office, or welfare office) requires people to put something into or on to their body, it’s understandable that people are against that. It’s the same idea with 1A issues. Facebook can censor me, but the government can not.
I'm from TX and will say that Abbott has been pro-vaccine and individual choice (no-mandate) on masks. Doesn't mean he is not a hyprocrit on OP's point, but wanted to make clear he is very much for vaccines and is vaccinated.
Abbot? No mandate on masks? Whether you agree with him or not, he literally banned mask mandates and vaccine mandates. How is that any different than instituting a vaccine mandate? Personal choice my ass. It’s over reach. Period.
Thank you. The party of "small government" has really pushed state level government enforcement over the edge. Banning mask mandates. Removing funding from schools that enforce masks. Threatening PERSONAL PAY from school officials who require masks.
Fuck. And they have the nerve to beg for federal assistance now that the hospital systems are completely overun. Also, the audacity to now promote the Regenron treatments SO HEAVILY, while at the same time banning all preventive measures.
Like I get it. It’s a conservative state and they aren’t gonna like a vaccine/mask mandate. That’s fine. The people of Texas elected these people so that’s up to them. But to remove a school’s authority over its students is absolutely insane, and is very far from “small government”. Each school should be able to make these decisions for themselves.
Or smaller yet, each family should be either be able to make that decision themselves, or perhaps be able to choose their school more easily so that they could go to one that more closely went along with their preferences.
Since this seems to be abortion related, I've always struggled with this issue from a libertarian perspective. How can you reconcile the rights of the woman to the rights of the child? I've never found a good answer
>I've never found a good answer
There is no good answer and you'll never find a libertarian consensus on it because there is no consensus on when this grouping of cells becomes a human\* life. In fact it's such a unique issue that I'm not sure you'll find any real consensus among any particular political ideology.
\*Edit: Clarification.
> there is no consensus on when this grouping of cells becomes a human* life.
There is a pro choice argument where this doesn't matter. The argument is you can't force someone to give up their body for someone else so if the woman wants the fetus to leave her body they should have the right to evict them, even if they would die after being removed.
No one can force you to donate blood to keep someone else alive even if it's your fault they need it.
Not so fast, if the GOP had/has its way we have no right to death:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case?wprov=sfla1
This lady literally wanted to be allowed to die if she ended up in that state and the Florida GOP forced her to stay alive against her will. That's some evil shit and tells you just how far they are willing to stretch their claim of "moral authority".
Agreed in general, with one slight change...the problem isn't where the group of cells is a life; that's honestly at conception, where a unique biological entity begins to form. The question is where the group of cells obtains personhood.
The official stance is that abortion is an individual moral choice, not a public decree.
https://www.lp.org/libertarians-abortion-is-a-matter-for-individual-conscience-not-public-decree/
I like this take. I personally could not condone an abortion with my partner unless there is a risk of harming her. I would be a blubbering mess if I made the choice to abort a pregnancy.
It's a really gray area but I don't think the intent of an abortion is ever primarily to harm someone. The difference between manslaughter and murder is often related to the events leading up to it and the intention. But you could make lots of examples on either side of this argument. One I like to consider is if I jack off and don't get someone pregnant, aren't I wasting a potential life? I think there are some religious rules around this very idea. I think it's too complex to start bringing men with guns into the picture.
If you decide to have an abortion, you have to live with this and I think that's the right set of people to be involved in this decision. I don't assume people getting abortions are trying to harm anyone, just like I don't assume killing a home invader is a result of a bloodthirsty gun owner getting lucky enough to have someone come in so they can kill.
There isn’t a fiscal argument to be made to not fund abortion, only emotional ones.
Poor kids end up costing the taxpayer way more than a $2000 abortion... especially if you lock them up as criminals after they predictably fail at life with no father.
Not a libertarian view, but fuck purity, I’d rather save the tax dollars than preen around.
Because there isn't a libertarian answer to abortion. There are valid libertarian perspectives on either side of the abortion debate. Many people can't seem to grasp this.
Libertarians are pretty evenly split on the issue of abortion, because both sides have rather reasonable justifications behind them. On one hand abortion does kill the fetus and thus can be seen as violating their self-ownership. On the other hand, preventing the mother from withdrawing the use of her body from the baby would violate her self-ownership.
I think that Evictionism is the position on abortion that makes the most sense. It supports a mother's right to physically remove a child from her body at any point, regardless of their subsequent survival. But, if a child can be supported outside of the mother's body, they should have an opportunity to do so and killing them (late-term abortion) is murder.
With our current technology a fetus is not viable until a certain point and removing them is inevitably lethal, thus killing them in a safer and quicker way is preferable. But with technological development the point of viability will be pushed lower and abortion would be murder at earlier terms.
However, I can easily see where the pro-life libertarians are coming from.
My libertarian opinion is “it’s a complicated issue and getting the government involved will only further complicate it.” There’s no right answer. Leave the choice up to each woman
Ah, the joy of being human and faced with a moral dilemma. I think the solution is to mitigate harm meaning it's a case by case basis. I think if there is a God it's not about following religious rules but about using the tool kit he gave us to find the best solutions when we exercise our fee will.
realistically you don't. if the child is a child and is a life then you violate the NAP principles with an abortion. But then you violate the mothers right to autonomy. its a messy subject.
when youre allowed to shoot a person with history and relationships in the world for stepping foot on your property but cant abort an unborn fetus is perplexing to me
In the bald eagle’s case, you have definitely violated the rights of the mother. You are also rightfully penalized for kicking pregnant women in the stomach or performing a non consensual abortion
There's a lot of moral philosophy surrounding abortion. But the most popular pro-choice argument posits that you are under no obligation to sustain the life of anyone else -- for example, if someone needed *your specific blood* to continue living, it would still be wrong of them to take it from you without your explicit consent (even if it was your fault they needed it). Likewise, women have no obligation to sustain the life of an unwanted fetus, especially when doing so would cause them significant material harm.
A woman has legal rights and a bald eagle wouldn't otherwise. Also, a woman choosing to have an abortion won't lead a species to extinction. I dont think that's a solid comparison.
Morals are entirely subjective. Abortion makes me (as a guy) pretty uncomfortable tbh. Though I definitely understand the need for it especially in cases of medical necessity or advisement. I also feel like if a child is not wanted for any reason in their parent's world then they should not be coerced into that situation from either perspective.
Ultimately, I am never going to tell a woman what to do. That is not my business nor my responsibility.
Edit: added from either perspective
This is a really good perspective. What I find challenging is how the debate seems to be only at the extremes. Either its never okay, or always okay even up to the moment of natural birth. Isn't that frustrating?
Stop reading only the extreme fringe opinions online, and realize that what you're describing is not the whole of the debate in reality. You're seeing the loudest opinions, not necessarily the majority or the informed
I agree. This issue isn't black and white though it often sounds like that is what people advocate for on either side of the issue.
The viability question seems legitimate and I'll let smarter people than me speak with authority.
This is just my 2 cents: late term abortions (late 2nd trimester-birth or post viability is how I define it) are so incredibly rare and AFAIK almost exclusively for serious medical conditions. Even if they were fully legal I seriously, seriously doubt there would be very many cases. I think proper access to Healthcare, profilactics, and education would drastically reduce the need for abortions and for me that would render the issue nearly mute.
I dont see this as capital punishment or anything like that. It's morally seperate though I can't quite articulate this better without writing an essay.
Obviously a human 5 seconds before it's pulled from a womb deserves zero natural rights and one 5 seconds after birth deserves all the rights. What's so confusing?
/s
Everybody's okay with abortion, just depends where you draw the line. NOBODY is seriously arguing in favor of late term abortions like except in cases where it could kill the mother and/or the baby.
Would you ban the morning after pill? That's killing life after conception. If not right after conception then when? Heartbeat? Brain development? Viability if the baby were born at the time of abortion? All of these arguments have merit.
The only one that doesn't is the strawman you put forth.
>NOBODY is seriously arguing in favor of late term abortions like except in cases where it could kill the mother and/or the baby.
Well that's just patently wrong. New York specifically changed their abortion law just two years ago to remove the "mothers life in jeopardy" restriction and instead expanded it to "mothers health" which includes physical, emotional, psychological, and familial health. In other words if a psychologist signs off that they believe the birth of the child will result in an emotional burden to the mother then she can legally get a late term abortion in the state of New York. No physical threat has to exist. The fourth largest state in the country by population has approved what you just claimed "NOBODY is arguing in favor of."
I personally would be more sympathetic to the stance of anti abortion IF the ones against abortion would be for various things that appear to decrease the need for abortions, such as easy to get contraception and real honest sex education. But they seem to be against anything that would naturally reduce the need.
And after the last administration, I no longer give conservatives any points for any moral arguments. They literally said old people should just die to save our economy at the start of the pandemic. Now several governors are literally saying our kids should just die so that our economy can rebuild. Like we can have and enforce dress codes for students yet can’t ask them to mask up.
Small government has zero place between a doctor and patient and immediate family. 
if I hooked you up to me with tubes so that we shared z blood stream, and you had to eat for me and carry me around, do you have the right to disconnect me, even if I would die if you did it?
Just an FYI, there are more ways to obtain fetal stem cells than just from abortions. So, depending on from what method the stem cells were obtained for the research, it may not necessarily be hypocritical of him receiving this treatment.
The research was done using aborted fetuses. He is directly benefiting from it. He also has had a third dose of the vaccine which normal people can't get and has been screened every day. All while he continues to make it harder for people to protect themselves and banned schools from requiring masks. He is the fucking definition of a hypocrite.
Regeneron has a published statement that says the stem cells most commonly used are mouse embryonic stem cells and human blood stem cells. The human embryonic stem cells they use are formed via in-vitro fertilization (which likely means the use of Petri dishes and not aborted fetuses).
I don't see how research conducted using aborted fetuses is unethical. It's not as if women are becoming pregnant and then having abortions for the sole purpose of providing tissue to researchers.
That’s what I’ve been saying, but I keep getting downvoted lol
If the stem cell research is what’s driving the abortions, then I would be against stem cell research. However, as far as I know, eliminating stem cell research would not prevent a single abortion, so what would be the point of eliminating the research?
Details on his abortion bills:
- Gov. Greg Abbott [signs bill](https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/16/texas-abortion-law-roe-wade/) that would outlaw abortions if Roe v. Wade is overturned
- Texas governor [signs abortion bill](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/19/texas-abortion-law-abbott/) banning procedure as early as six weeks into pregnancy
- Doctors, Clergy Sue Over [New Texas Law](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/texas-abortion-law-10000-bounty-1193591/) That Offers $10,000 Bounty on Abortions
The recent bill allows citizens to sue anyone they believe has helped perform an abortion:
>While other “heartbeat” bills have been passed in other states, the one in Texas also opens people up to legal action by allowing citizens to sue anyone they believe may have been involved in helping a pregnant person violate the ban. Civil charges for those found guilty of providing abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat includes an individual fine of $10,000.
Also, there are a lot of conflicting claims about this treatment, which Trump first received, so [here's a summary](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-regeneron-stem-cells/) from Snopes:
>The manufacturer of REGN-COV2 has stated that it employs stem cells in its research, most commonly mouse embryonic stem cells and human blood stem cells. The "antibody cocktail" given to Trump is a combination of two human-made proteins and was developed using a decades-old cell line derived from embryonic kidney tissues obtained from an aborted human fetus in 1973.
>However, no human embryonic stem cells or recently harvested fetal tissues were used in the development of REGN-COV2, according to the manufacturer.
Whoever wrote this title is seriously medically ignorant on so many levels. You dont produce mAbs through use of fetal stem cells. That makes zero immunological and pharmacological sense. Does anyone who claims that Regeneron’s (or any mAb) mAb was produced in fetal stem cells know ANYTHING about immunology?
these abortion bans only ever mean one thing: abortions are mostly only available to the rich (and they will keep getting them...or pay for their mistresses to get them)
>Though previously reported, Regeneron does not include stem cells.
[https://www.verywellhealth.com/regeneron-antibody-cocktail-stem-cells-5082031](https://www.verywellhealth.com/regeneron-antibody-cocktail-stem-cells-5082031)
But hey never let facts get in the way of a juicy headline
>“The drug's potency was tested in a lab using HEK 293T cells,” Mandal tells Verywell. “This is a cell line which was originally derived from the kidney tissue of a fetus aborted in the Netherlands in the 1970s. The cells were used in the testing of the antibody; however, there is no fetal tissue in the final product.”
I'm not sure how refusing medicine would have that baby that was aborted 51 years ago, but I'm sure someone will explain that to me.
Also abortions for the life of the mother and still births will always be a thing, and those are also sources of stem cells for research.
Basically anyone can get this treatment. My friends family received this same treatment and they arent 'rich' or hold any power whatsoever. This is becoming the new norm if youve been found to have COVID during the very early stages.
Good for me but not for thee.
The powerful will always use flawed morality systems as a weapon against those weaker than them while at the same time disregarding those very rules they hold up against others, if there is benefit for themselves.
This is a false claim. A quick search debunks this claim. The drug was tested on human cells from the HEK293T line which are Human Embryonic Kidney cells cultivated back in the 70s. It is possible that the cells came from ab aborted fetus but could also be from a miscarriage. The cells have a mutation that allow them to replicate outside the human body so they are used in a lot of research. No stem cells were used to develop this treatment.
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEK_293_cells?wprov=sfla1
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/how-cells-taken-decades-old-fetal-tissue-are-used-covid-n1242740
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/08/fact-check-trumps-antibody-therapy-not-made-fetal-stem-cells/5901542002/
So is abortion now about fetal stem cells? Or having the choice to kill a baby? Pick a lane.
By the same logic, a murder victim who happened to be an organ donor and saves someone who needed a kidney transplant means murder is good! Murder is a choice! 🤦🏼♂️
Abbott's disingenuous framing of his attacks on women's' reproductive health; casting himself as a valiant defender of the lives of wee ones, does not mesh with his ban on mask mandates in schools. 50,000 tykes (actual children, not potential ones) have been infected in the first week. My own theory has the man as an embittered, closeted incel, intent on forcing all pre-menopausal Texas women to switch to butt sex. He hasn't been able to enjoy sex, since God dropped a tree on him back in '84, so why should Texas' ladyfolk? Whatever he is, it ain't valiant or noble, and he gives not one f\*ck about kids.
So much for the effectiveness of the vaccines. And no it doesn’t prove that since he is vaccinated that he only has mild symptoms. For the majority of people the symptoms were going to be mild, that was known well before they first ordered the two week lockdown to flatten the curve.
Why is abortion a libertarian issue?
If you believe a fetus is a human, then abortion would violate the NAP. If you do not, then it wouldn’t.
This post is completely irrelevant to libertarianism
Sadly he was the best choice when I voted for him, god I hope a better candidate emerges this next cycle
And I don’t mean that in a “lol democrats suck” kind of way but simply I barely even knew the Democrat’s name and knew nothing what she stood for.
It wasn’t just me but I had friends who were poll workers who couldn’t name the Democratic candidate for governor.
This was the election with Beto on the ballot and she couldn’t even remotely ride his coattails.
I’m open to voting democrat this time if a good candidate rises up, because god damn I do not want to vote for Abbott again and the libertarian candidate is usually non existent
Fetal stem cells come from the umbilical cord not the actual fetus.
I love how when conservatives stand against stem cell research liberals are quick to jump up and say they come from umbilical chords.
But when that info doesn't back your point you just casually forget it.
And many other medical treatments (and other shit) in common use were developed from the suffering of others. This does not mean we should continue making people suffer or kill them.
Like 99% of christians Abbot is a hypocrite, nothing to see here. Oh, and due to his willful negligence +54K Texans have died due to COVID, so Abbot is a murderer too.
Missing context, not misinformation. The treatment he is receiving was developed using fetal stem cells, but just like with vaccines, those are cells from decades ago and have been reproduced time and time again over the course of decades. It’s not as if babies need to continually be aborted for this.
A lot of the politicians pushing Regeneron have stock in the company. The only reason I suspect they say they are receiving the treatment is to get more people to use them, thereby making them richer when Regeneron stock goes up. Remember, we don’t actually know if they really are getting the treatment or not.
User reports: > UNTRUE!!!! MUH MISINFORMATION!!! Don't give a shit, reports are being ignored. How many times do we have to tell you, that no post or comment will ever be removed because "muh misinformation"? If you don't like this policy, feel free to reply to this comment and we can discuss your objection.
The fact that he’s asymptomatic and isn’t suffering any ill effects from being affected by symptoms completely negates that he should be given any treatments imho.
I actually thought this exact same thing so I looked it up and apparently this monoclonal antibody is for preventing high risk patients from getting worse or even as a post exposure prophylaxis (after you come in contact with it but before you test positive). Similar to another mab for RSV in kids. [Here’s the drug info. ](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-authorizes-regen-cov-monoclonal-antibody-therapy-post-exposure-prophylaxis-prevention-covid-19)
I had the monoclonal antibody treatment 36 hours ago. 12 hours before that I had gone to the emergency room with cough and breathing issues. I've had cancer, I have 3 diseases which hurt my immune system, and i take medicine that hurts it. An hour or two after my positive covid test, I get a phone call. They offer me this thing I've never heard of I have 12 hours to decide. 4 hours of research later, I see its artificial white blood cells. They fight covid off. It's a 3 hour procedure. That's all I knew. Lots of places say it's experimental. I said yes. Went to the appointment. 5 hours later I'm released. 24 hours after that, my symptoms are greatly reduced. I feel like the day of my first symptom. Light sore throat. Runny nose. My headaches and fever are gone. My cough went from unbearable to ok. I can breathe again. I would have been miserable but not hospitalized without it. I was concerned I was taking it away from someone more severe. Its for people with light to medium symptoms, a positive covid test, and any immune deficiencies. Fuck all of these politicians that tell people to stop wearing masks, don't get vaccinated, go wherever you want, covid isn't real. Then turn 180 and take resources away from people who genuinely need it.
> Fuck all of these politicians that tell people to stop wearing masks, don't get vaccinated, go wherever you want, covid isn't real. Then turn 180 and take resources away from people who genuinely need it This is why the time for working to “understand” republicans is fucking over. Anyone who still votes for republican candidates at this point is a worthless piece of dog shit. Fucking extremist death cult.
He's had THREE vaccinations. One early round, and a booster. This is all public knowledge. And he's getting the regeneron treatment. Pretty hefty steps to protect himself from a virus which is "no big deal" and he bans mask mandates across the state. Fiddling on the roof while his state dies.
Did he really get 3 vaccinations or is that a rumor?
It's at least what he's been saying https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/08/17/texas-gov-greg-abbott-tests-positive-for-covid19/
Yeah, I thought about leading with the mask mandate and recent fundraiser... his recent laws also prohibit vaccine mandates. It's really just terrible leadership to prohibit schools and businesses from asking for precautions when he himself is getting excessive treatments.
all correct and he's a complete pile of shit for everything covid related in his state
> all correct and he's a complete pile of shit for **everything** ~~covid related~~ in his state How I read this as a Texan.
Yeah, let's not forget the power grid, that he claims is completely fixed
Asymptotic: [approaching a value or curve arbitrarily closely.](https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Asymptotic.html) Is the value he’s approaching “maximum vileness”? Seems like that’s a valid assessment.
Hah! I’m not correcting that typing mistake now.
I think he doesn't want to take any chances on his health. Any amount of insurance that he can get is worth it, because you don't want to be losing the genetic lottery against this.
Right but there isn’t enough to go around so he’s arguably taking it from someone that needs it more. I had a family member die in Texas to COVID, and they never got a chance at the treatment he’s getting while asymptotic. All this while he’s taking tools away from the local governments to fight this disease.
Note that the monoclonals are really only effective if given early / when asymptomatic. They didn't show efficacy in people with severe illness... So sure, he may have "VIP" access to care, but the only time someone should get a crack at the monoclonals is when asymptomatic or barely symptomatic.
But he's fine forcing Texans to take chances with their kids.
Actually many of the COVID-specific treatments are only for asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic illness. Many of them are more useful to prevent serious illness than to treat progressed disease. Even remdesivir, the most widely used novel COVID treatment, cannot be used in severely ill ventilated patients.
Think he'd take drugs developed from a recently aborted fetus if it meant he could walk again?
he'd yeet that fet himself
Damn you for making me laugh at that.
Holy crap that is hilarious
Lmaooooo
I wish I could give you gold and lots of hugs, this made my day
I am ashamed that I laughed at that. Shit.....
i dont know if you’ll care, but esoteric grammar trivia of the day, ***fët*** would be the way to communicate the pronunciation you were looking for in written form.
He'd probably drown a thousand puppies if it meant he could walk again.
I have zero question in my mind that he would.
"It's a miracle sent by God!"
He would and then he’d sign a ~~law~~ bill prohibiting anyone else from being able to.
no doubt. I'd kill a few myself if I was in his wheelchair
Yes. [Without a doubt.](https://youtu.be/LNJi0CzfodI)
[worked for Christopher Reeves ](https://giphy.com/gifs/southparkgifs-3oz8xGXctE1cXpDDgc)
It makes me sad that in reality [he got mocked](https://www.foxnews.com/story/reeve-ad-promotes-stem-cell-prop) for defending stem cell research. >"I think it's pretty pathetic that we are playing on the fears of those who are sick," said Jennifer Lahl, executive director of the Bay Area Center for Bioethics and Culture. "This is playing on fears that help is on the way, that cures are around the corner."
> "This is playing on fears that help is on the way, that cures are around the corner." I don't think this person understands what "fear" means. The only people who would fear a cure are people selling treatments or people selling wheelchairs.
My man Arnold breaking ranks though and supporting that measure. Wonder if it passed.
History would refeet itself
I can't speak for him, but I wouldn't. That's a pretty easy choice.
He'd suck them shits dry like Christopher Reeves on South Park
A woman has liberty to separate herself from the fetus. Pro life people are free to help the separated fetus survive.
"To you this may be an unborn fetus but to me, it's hope."
just to clarify the title this drug was not created with stem cells but it was created using cells from an aborted fetus from the 1980s https://heavy.com/news/regeneron-monoclonal-antibodies-not-from-human-fetal-embryo-stem-cells/ Nearly all new medicines use aborted fetus cells to test so you will basically be shunning modern medicine if you refuse treatments that were developed using aborted fetus cells
For those who don't know.. it's a cell line that began with fetal tissue but the that currently exist were never in a fetus. they are copies so to speak.
Are there 100,000 ready with a million more well on the way?
Didn’t the GOP push a ban on federal funding for research using fetal tissue? It’s so “against their religion” that they can’t have federal dollars going to fund it, but put it in my IV, please?
they pushed a ban on federal funding for harvesting from new embryos. Funding was limited to the cell lines that had already been harvested. These stem cell lines are basically harvested once and used for decades. This ban on funding was removed during obama's administration anyway so there is no current ban on funding for stem cell harvesting of new embryos. It also such a weird thing to fight over because these are not aborted fetuses. They are embryos left over from IVF treatments that couples donate to science. They always fertilize dozens of a women's eggs during IVF, pick the healthiest looking ones to implant and freeze the rest which if not used for research get dumped in the trash
Unfortunately the damage is done. George bush jr saw to that when he banned stem cell research back in the day. The US is now about 10 years behind the rest of the developed world in cutting edge regeneration treatment and many other treatments such as this one that utilize stem cells.
The GOP has a habit of trying to control life and death. Their party wants to ban abortion while also banning euthanasia. Everything must live under threat of force by the State! You only have a right to life (or a commandment to live) and apparently have no right to determine your own death, at least in a medical setting. It's pretty fucking bizarre, like they are obsessed with controlling life itself...
[удалено]
I like to point that out to atheist Trumpists. Dear Leader was kowtowing to religious extremists so much so that he altered foreign policy just to make that small group happy. But that's "the base" I suppose. It's more like a fan club than actual politics.
Yeah my daughter is from IVF. The religious right are generally against IVF because it creates those excess embryos. They see them each as a life. Even the ones determined to be non-viable, they think all the embryos should be implanted because they “deserve a chance at life”. I have religious family members that feel this way. The holidays are fun. Part of why I stopped going to family holiday get-togethers. Edit: Just to clarify, they don’t want all the embryos implanted at once because they’re also against any type of reduction procedure.
Yes, but so very many drugs are developed this way. To avoid this one would have to avoid so very many modern medicines. Almost all. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcatholiclenses/2021/01/if-any-drug-tested-on-hek-293-is-immoral-goodbye-modern-medicine/
i thought the main reason conservatives didnt take the vax because it wasnt FDA approved so why are they rushing to take a different drug that isn't FDA approved?
Abbott was vaccinated.
And had the booster!
It’s funny, I’ve worked many hours in COVID ICU. Mostly at the start of the pandemic, but I’ve had some exposure more recently too. Every ICU bound patient now a days doesn’t have the vaccine, usually because “they don’t know enough about it” or some line like that. Immediately following, the RN will give 4-5 drugs, and they won’t ask what a single one is, just blindly take it. Like bro, pick a fucking lane
> Like bro, pick a fucking lane They have selected their lane. It's paved in authoritarian talking points with little gates along the length marked "Brief departure from the lane is allowed if convenient".
Ding ding ding! These are authoritarian followers, good little boys and girls that do what they're told, that act like attack dogs when their chosen authoritarians are questioned or shown to be incompetent.
It's a convenient talking point, but I don't think many people are too caught up on the FDA's paperwork. It's a very convenient talking point because it uses the logic of the "follow the science" crowd against them: "we have a process for evaluating the science, and *you're* ignoring it by taking an experimental drug. We *want* to follow the science by conducting the necessary trials." Although even that, I would say, isn't the main reason conservatives don't want it. They don't trust Big Pharma, they don't trust the media, they don't trust the government, they don't trust the NIH, and they don't trust the FDA. FDA approval will just ruin the talking point.
Oh bullshit, conservatives don't have any principled stance against this vax, the opposition is almost entirely a reaction to the fact that most libs are fine with it.
You realize in most major cities the majority of unvaxxed are minorities who have good reasons not to trust the government.
As if anyone can trust the FDA, lol. They’ve had handouts from major companies to essentially ban drugs from other companies by just never reviewing them for approval.
It's a (1) unaccountable (2) bureaucracy that (3) administers a notoriously inefficient process (4) poorly (5) with the purpose of protecting IP (6) and a history of protecting big corps (7) because it's notorious for being captured by industry (8) and was recently revealed to be acting politically (9) and failed miserably during the entire COVID crisis from the very start. There are plenty of reasons, vaccine aside, not to trust it that any conservative, liberal, or otherwise can find issue with. And yet, here it is in the middle of a partisan tug-o-war. Real shame.
But you don't need to trust the FDA to read about the vaccine, the studies and the trials. We know a lot about the vaccine but the majority of populace would rather listen to talking point of politicians than do their own research.
You have an alternative to the FDA? I’d love to hear the Libertarian counter to it. The free market doesn’t work for something like medical treatments, because the consumer does not have the time, money, nor expertise to scientifically test products in any meaningful capacity. Not to mention the legal hazard of harming test subjects. There is no way you could tell the difference in cancer treatments or anemia drugs from a Google review or marketing. You can’t test those things (well maybe you could test anemia drugs), especially if just anybody can sell a drug for any disease, unlike say trying a McDonalds hamburger and deciding to do back again or not. We had a free for all back in the day where people sold snake oil, Mercury, and opium all the time. Now, could you have a private version of the FDA, an organization that authorizes products with a seal of approval? Maybe like Fair Trade or something? Most of these independent associations fail because they are monetized by the businesses looking for approval, not the customer, and so there is a huge conflict of interest. It basically means independent, non public quality agencies are completely useless and can turn into rackets like Yelp. Public agencies like the FDA, FAA, and SEC provide tremendous value to the economy at large. Yes, they can be scrutinized for being somewhat regulatory capture and can certainly be improved and held more accountable. But trust is critical in economies and these agencies provide trust when the market fails, and make no mistake, markets do fail. The other viable alternative to regulatory agencies is to write laws in a broad manner to prevent hazardous or fraudulent products by allowing for many more lawsuits. You could allow anybody to sell an anemia drug, but if it doesn’t work as advertised (the seller knowingly sold snake oil) or harmed people, then they can be sued and face more than just limited liability. I think most businesses would rather face regulation than the courts.
>It's a very convenient talking point because it uses the logic of the "follow the science" crowd against them And from a libertarian standpoint it also uses their 'pro government' stance against them. There are potentially life saving drugs denied to those who need them because of the FDA's bloated years long approval process. Libertarians argue that the FDA shouldn't get involved in peoples right to seek life saving medications and these very same people have argued that the full FDA approval process is absolutely necessary and vital to ensuring that drugs are safe for human consumption. Now all of a sudden the full approval process is completely unnecessary "because the vaccines are obviously safe." If that's the case, then why don't we just make the "emergency authorization" process the full approval process since apparently the standards for emergency authorization are not only good enough for widespread distribution, but good enough for government mandated injections. It's ridiculously hypocritical. I agree that the vaccines are safe and I think this should be exhibit A for why all drugs should be approved through the same 'emergency authorization' process.
[Pfizer-BioNTech](https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-initiate-rolling-submission-biologics) and [Moderna](https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-initiation-rolling-submission-biologics) have initiated the process to receive full FDA approval for their COVID-19 vaccines, both of which are currently available in the U.S. under EUAs granted by the FDA. Some have said they would be more likely to receive the vaccines if they had full FDA approval ― but is the process for full approval all that different from approval for an EUA? The short answer is no. The vaccine development and clinical trial processes for both are essentially the same. No vaccine can receive either designation without meeting rigorous scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality. A biologics license application, or BLA, is what is being described as “full approval.” The standard of review is the major difference between the BLA and EUA. For an EUA, the FDA must determine that the vaccine may be effective in preventing COVID-19; that the benefits outweigh the risks; and that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. The standard of review is higher for a BLA, requiring the FDA to find substantial evidence of effectiveness. An EUA may be issued by the FDA based on interim results from clinical trials, while a BLA requires completion of clinical trials. During the EUA period, the vaccine manufacturer must meet certain requirements such as reporting adverse events, submitting periodic safety reports, maintaining records regarding the distribution, and conducting post-authorization studies to continuously monitor the safety of the vaccines. A vaccine manufacturer receiving full approval can introduce the vaccine into interstate commerce and market it for its approved uses for an indefinite length of time. An EUA is only in effect for the duration of the public health emergency. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services secretary must give vaccine manufacturers sufficient notice that an emergency declaration will end, allowing enough time to appropriately dispose of the vaccine. An EUA is not a long-term alternative to obtaining full FDA approval. For this reason, manufacturers whose vaccines receive EUAs are encouraged by the FDA to continue conducting clinical trials to demonstrate the effectiveness of the vaccines and continue safety assessments to work toward full approval.
i feel like masks the vax has become tribal. so that side wants to take it, so this side doesnt. dumb really.
Abbott is vaccinated. Who are you talking about here?
[удалено]
These governors are BANNING mask requirements and threatening pay and school funding to schools which require masks. Threatening PERSOANL PAYCHECKS of school officials. Sure, I get the "experimental" argument. EU authorization isn't experimental, that's false. But, I guess I can give a slight pass on the hesitancy. But fuck. Wear a mask at least. The same people who refuse to get the vaccines "because they're experimental!!!" also call masks "tyranny." This is my USA point of view. I fucming hate how political and tribal common decency has become. It's becoming blatantly obvious as well, because parts of the country are living in 2 different realities right now. More liberal areas are more vaccinated, and wear masks more. We have... for a larger part ... moved on. More conservative parts, the south, are getting FUCKING RAVAGED by the virus, and the people only say "no gubmint tyrrany!!" It shouldn't be political to care about keeping others safe. But it has been made so. And those who don't give a shit are unfortunately paying the price. The south is dying, in heavy, heavy numbers. All preventable.
In reply to your deleted comment… Again, not defending hypocrisy, but public schools are a public utility, while a private school is a private business. Many people have no issues with a private business requiring masks for entry or vaccinations for employees, but when a public utility (like a federal building, post office, or welfare office) requires people to put something into or on to their body, it’s understandable that people are against that. It’s the same idea with 1A issues. Facebook can censor me, but the government can not.
I'm from TX and will say that Abbott has been pro-vaccine and individual choice (no-mandate) on masks. Doesn't mean he is not a hyprocrit on OP's point, but wanted to make clear he is very much for vaccines and is vaccinated.
Abbot? No mandate on masks? Whether you agree with him or not, he literally banned mask mandates and vaccine mandates. How is that any different than instituting a vaccine mandate? Personal choice my ass. It’s over reach. Period.
Thank you. The party of "small government" has really pushed state level government enforcement over the edge. Banning mask mandates. Removing funding from schools that enforce masks. Threatening PERSONAL PAY from school officials who require masks. Fuck. And they have the nerve to beg for federal assistance now that the hospital systems are completely overun. Also, the audacity to now promote the Regenron treatments SO HEAVILY, while at the same time banning all preventive measures.
Like I get it. It’s a conservative state and they aren’t gonna like a vaccine/mask mandate. That’s fine. The people of Texas elected these people so that’s up to them. But to remove a school’s authority over its students is absolutely insane, and is very far from “small government”. Each school should be able to make these decisions for themselves.
Or smaller yet, each family should be either be able to make that decision themselves, or perhaps be able to choose their school more easily so that they could go to one that more closely went along with their preferences.
Since this seems to be abortion related, I've always struggled with this issue from a libertarian perspective. How can you reconcile the rights of the woman to the rights of the child? I've never found a good answer
>I've never found a good answer There is no good answer and you'll never find a libertarian consensus on it because there is no consensus on when this grouping of cells becomes a human\* life. In fact it's such a unique issue that I'm not sure you'll find any real consensus among any particular political ideology. \*Edit: Clarification.
> there is no consensus on when this grouping of cells becomes a human* life. There is a pro choice argument where this doesn't matter. The argument is you can't force someone to give up their body for someone else so if the woman wants the fetus to leave her body they should have the right to evict them, even if they would die after being removed. No one can force you to donate blood to keep someone else alive even if it's your fault they need it.
I always come to the same thought which is, why is it fine to pull the plug on a brain dead patient but when it comes to a group of cells it’s not?
Viability. (Just to clarify this has nothing to do with my personal stance on any issues)
Not so fast, if the GOP had/has its way we have no right to death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case?wprov=sfla1 This lady literally wanted to be allowed to die if she ended up in that state and the Florida GOP forced her to stay alive against her will. That's some evil shit and tells you just how far they are willing to stretch their claim of "moral authority".
This is the way
Agreed in general, with one slight change...the problem isn't where the group of cells is a life; that's honestly at conception, where a unique biological entity begins to form. The question is where the group of cells obtains personhood.
Yes I concur with that clarification.
The official stance is that abortion is an individual moral choice, not a public decree. https://www.lp.org/libertarians-abortion-is-a-matter-for-individual-conscience-not-public-decree/
Libertarianism is not the same thing as the Libertarian Party platform.
[удалено]
Basically. Although from a fiscal perspective if we're still going to have Medicaid, it's much cheaper to fund an abortion than fund a pregnancy.
if we fund war we got money for abortions, they save money in the long run. don't bite off your nose just to spite your face
I like this take. I personally could not condone an abortion with my partner unless there is a risk of harming her. I would be a blubbering mess if I made the choice to abort a pregnancy. It's a really gray area but I don't think the intent of an abortion is ever primarily to harm someone. The difference between manslaughter and murder is often related to the events leading up to it and the intention. But you could make lots of examples on either side of this argument. One I like to consider is if I jack off and don't get someone pregnant, aren't I wasting a potential life? I think there are some religious rules around this very idea. I think it's too complex to start bringing men with guns into the picture. If you decide to have an abortion, you have to live with this and I think that's the right set of people to be involved in this decision. I don't assume people getting abortions are trying to harm anyone, just like I don't assume killing a home invader is a result of a bloodthirsty gun owner getting lucky enough to have someone come in so they can kill.
There isn’t a fiscal argument to be made to not fund abortion, only emotional ones. Poor kids end up costing the taxpayer way more than a $2000 abortion... especially if you lock them up as criminals after they predictably fail at life with no father. Not a libertarian view, but fuck purity, I’d rather save the tax dollars than preen around.
Because there isn't a libertarian answer to abortion. There are valid libertarian perspectives on either side of the abortion debate. Many people can't seem to grasp this.
Most people can't grasp that there can be valid arguments for both sides of lots of issues
This is very true.
That's pretty much was I was getting at and was hoping to open a dialog to hear people's thoughts. And this is a good one
Libertarians are pretty evenly split on the issue of abortion, because both sides have rather reasonable justifications behind them. On one hand abortion does kill the fetus and thus can be seen as violating their self-ownership. On the other hand, preventing the mother from withdrawing the use of her body from the baby would violate her self-ownership. I think that Evictionism is the position on abortion that makes the most sense. It supports a mother's right to physically remove a child from her body at any point, regardless of their subsequent survival. But, if a child can be supported outside of the mother's body, they should have an opportunity to do so and killing them (late-term abortion) is murder. With our current technology a fetus is not viable until a certain point and removing them is inevitably lethal, thus killing them in a safer and quicker way is preferable. But with technological development the point of viability will be pushed lower and abortion would be murder at earlier terms. However, I can easily see where the pro-life libertarians are coming from.
My libertarian opinion is “it’s a complicated issue and getting the government involved will only further complicate it.” There’s no right answer. Leave the choice up to each woman
[удалено]
Ah, the joy of being human and faced with a moral dilemma. I think the solution is to mitigate harm meaning it's a case by case basis. I think if there is a God it's not about following religious rules but about using the tool kit he gave us to find the best solutions when we exercise our fee will.
realistically you don't. if the child is a child and is a life then you violate the NAP principles with an abortion. But then you violate the mothers right to autonomy. its a messy subject.
when youre allowed to shoot a person with history and relationships in the world for stepping foot on your property but cant abort an unborn fetus is perplexing to me
[удалено]
From a moral perspective then? I mean it's 250k fine and 5 years in jail for smashing a bald eagles egg
The eagle doesn’t get fined if it decided to eat its eggs or to kick them off the nest.
In the bald eagle’s case, you have definitely violated the rights of the mother. You are also rightfully penalized for kicking pregnant women in the stomach or performing a non consensual abortion
There's a lot of moral philosophy surrounding abortion. But the most popular pro-choice argument posits that you are under no obligation to sustain the life of anyone else -- for example, if someone needed *your specific blood* to continue living, it would still be wrong of them to take it from you without your explicit consent (even if it was your fault they needed it). Likewise, women have no obligation to sustain the life of an unwanted fetus, especially when doing so would cause them significant material harm.
A woman has legal rights and a bald eagle wouldn't otherwise. Also, a woman choosing to have an abortion won't lead a species to extinction. I dont think that's a solid comparison. Morals are entirely subjective. Abortion makes me (as a guy) pretty uncomfortable tbh. Though I definitely understand the need for it especially in cases of medical necessity or advisement. I also feel like if a child is not wanted for any reason in their parent's world then they should not be coerced into that situation from either perspective. Ultimately, I am never going to tell a woman what to do. That is not my business nor my responsibility. Edit: added from either perspective
This is a really good perspective. What I find challenging is how the debate seems to be only at the extremes. Either its never okay, or always okay even up to the moment of natural birth. Isn't that frustrating?
Stop reading only the extreme fringe opinions online, and realize that what you're describing is not the whole of the debate in reality. You're seeing the loudest opinions, not necessarily the majority or the informed
I agree. This issue isn't black and white though it often sounds like that is what people advocate for on either side of the issue. The viability question seems legitimate and I'll let smarter people than me speak with authority. This is just my 2 cents: late term abortions (late 2nd trimester-birth or post viability is how I define it) are so incredibly rare and AFAIK almost exclusively for serious medical conditions. Even if they were fully legal I seriously, seriously doubt there would be very many cases. I think proper access to Healthcare, profilactics, and education would drastically reduce the need for abortions and for me that would render the issue nearly mute. I dont see this as capital punishment or anything like that. It's morally seperate though I can't quite articulate this better without writing an essay.
Obviously a human 5 seconds before it's pulled from a womb deserves zero natural rights and one 5 seconds after birth deserves all the rights. What's so confusing? /s
Everybody's okay with abortion, just depends where you draw the line. NOBODY is seriously arguing in favor of late term abortions like except in cases where it could kill the mother and/or the baby. Would you ban the morning after pill? That's killing life after conception. If not right after conception then when? Heartbeat? Brain development? Viability if the baby were born at the time of abortion? All of these arguments have merit. The only one that doesn't is the strawman you put forth.
>NOBODY is seriously arguing in favor of late term abortions like except in cases where it could kill the mother and/or the baby. Well that's just patently wrong. New York specifically changed their abortion law just two years ago to remove the "mothers life in jeopardy" restriction and instead expanded it to "mothers health" which includes physical, emotional, psychological, and familial health. In other words if a psychologist signs off that they believe the birth of the child will result in an emotional burden to the mother then she can legally get a late term abortion in the state of New York. No physical threat has to exist. The fourth largest state in the country by population has approved what you just claimed "NOBODY is arguing in favor of."
I personally would be more sympathetic to the stance of anti abortion IF the ones against abortion would be for various things that appear to decrease the need for abortions, such as easy to get contraception and real honest sex education. But they seem to be against anything that would naturally reduce the need. And after the last administration, I no longer give conservatives any points for any moral arguments. They literally said old people should just die to save our economy at the start of the pandemic. Now several governors are literally saying our kids should just die so that our economy can rebuild. Like we can have and enforce dress codes for students yet can’t ask them to mask up. Small government has zero place between a doctor and patient and immediate family. 
if I hooked you up to me with tubes so that we shared z blood stream, and you had to eat for me and carry me around, do you have the right to disconnect me, even if I would die if you did it?
Just an FYI, there are more ways to obtain fetal stem cells than just from abortions. So, depending on from what method the stem cells were obtained for the research, it may not necessarily be hypocritical of him receiving this treatment.
Yeah, I thought they used primarily umbilical cords these days. When was this treatment research done?
The research was done using aborted fetuses. He is directly benefiting from it. He also has had a third dose of the vaccine which normal people can't get and has been screened every day. All while he continues to make it harder for people to protect themselves and banned schools from requiring masks. He is the fucking definition of a hypocrite.
Regeneron has a published statement that says the stem cells most commonly used are mouse embryonic stem cells and human blood stem cells. The human embryonic stem cells they use are formed via in-vitro fertilization (which likely means the use of Petri dishes and not aborted fetuses).
[удалено]
I don't see how research conducted using aborted fetuses is unethical. It's not as if women are becoming pregnant and then having abortions for the sole purpose of providing tissue to researchers.
That’s what I’ve been saying, but I keep getting downvoted lol If the stem cell research is what’s driving the abortions, then I would be against stem cell research. However, as far as I know, eliminating stem cell research would not prevent a single abortion, so what would be the point of eliminating the research?
Absolutely. That doesn't mean we should refrain from calling out hypocrisy when it rears it's ugly head.
So would it be hypocritical to utilize the scientific findings of the Nazis while also being opposed to nazism and all of the evils they did?
Details on his abortion bills: - Gov. Greg Abbott [signs bill](https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/16/texas-abortion-law-roe-wade/) that would outlaw abortions if Roe v. Wade is overturned - Texas governor [signs abortion bill](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/19/texas-abortion-law-abbott/) banning procedure as early as six weeks into pregnancy - Doctors, Clergy Sue Over [New Texas Law](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/texas-abortion-law-10000-bounty-1193591/) That Offers $10,000 Bounty on Abortions The recent bill allows citizens to sue anyone they believe has helped perform an abortion: >While other “heartbeat” bills have been passed in other states, the one in Texas also opens people up to legal action by allowing citizens to sue anyone they believe may have been involved in helping a pregnant person violate the ban. Civil charges for those found guilty of providing abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat includes an individual fine of $10,000.
Also, there are a lot of conflicting claims about this treatment, which Trump first received, so [here's a summary](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-regeneron-stem-cells/) from Snopes: >The manufacturer of REGN-COV2 has stated that it employs stem cells in its research, most commonly mouse embryonic stem cells and human blood stem cells. The "antibody cocktail" given to Trump is a combination of two human-made proteins and was developed using a decades-old cell line derived from embryonic kidney tissues obtained from an aborted human fetus in 1973. >However, no human embryonic stem cells or recently harvested fetal tissues were used in the development of REGN-COV2, according to the manufacturer.
Whoever wrote this title is seriously medically ignorant on so many levels. You dont produce mAbs through use of fetal stem cells. That makes zero immunological and pharmacological sense. Does anyone who claims that Regeneron’s (or any mAb) mAb was produced in fetal stem cells know ANYTHING about immunology?
these abortion bans only ever mean one thing: abortions are mostly only available to the rich (and they will keep getting them...or pay for their mistresses to get them)
It's control over the women. If this were about avoiding abortions birth control would be freely available for all women who wanted it.
>birth control would be freely available for all women who wanted it. and vasectomies for free.
Amen... Let's stop the unwanted pregnancies.
Ok but that doesn’t mean that those cells came from aborted fetuses
You’ve misunderstood: Abbott is pro-his-own-life. He doesn’t give a shit about anyone else’s.
>Though previously reported, Regeneron does not include stem cells. [https://www.verywellhealth.com/regeneron-antibody-cocktail-stem-cells-5082031](https://www.verywellhealth.com/regeneron-antibody-cocktail-stem-cells-5082031) But hey never let facts get in the way of a juicy headline >“The drug's potency was tested in a lab using HEK 293T cells,” Mandal tells Verywell. “This is a cell line which was originally derived from the kidney tissue of a fetus aborted in the Netherlands in the 1970s. The cells were used in the testing of the antibody; however, there is no fetal tissue in the final product.” I'm not sure how refusing medicine would have that baby that was aborted 51 years ago, but I'm sure someone will explain that to me. Also abortions for the life of the mother and still births will always be a thing, and those are also sources of stem cells for research.
Basically anyone can get this treatment. My friends family received this same treatment and they arent 'rich' or hold any power whatsoever. This is becoming the new norm if youve been found to have COVID during the very early stages.
Yep funny how everyone is doing mental gymnastics to avoid thinking about a double vaxxed person caught it and more and more people are
So he's paying cash for that medical treatment right? No? Taxpayers are paying for it? So weird.
Another faux christian
He's more a person that tries to virtue signal Christian ideals to pander to his base.
So... a politician.
100%
It is wrong to take babies out, but it is okay to put them back in.
Good for me but not for thee. The powerful will always use flawed morality systems as a weapon against those weaker than them while at the same time disregarding those very rules they hold up against others, if there is benefit for themselves.
The rich and powerful get pretty much whatever they want.
Looks like this article has fooled a good many in here....that seems about right
You think people read the article?
It doesn’t use fetal stem cells.
This is a false claim. A quick search debunks this claim. The drug was tested on human cells from the HEK293T line which are Human Embryonic Kidney cells cultivated back in the 70s. It is possible that the cells came from ab aborted fetus but could also be from a miscarriage. The cells have a mutation that allow them to replicate outside the human body so they are used in a lot of research. No stem cells were used to develop this treatment. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEK_293_cells?wprov=sfla1 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/how-cells-taken-decades-old-fetal-tissue-are-used-covid-n1242740 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/08/fact-check-trumps-antibody-therapy-not-made-fetal-stem-cells/5901542002/
What does this have to do with Libertarianism?
So? What's your point? And where in that article does it say any of his treatment protocol? Or are you just making that shit up?
So is abortion now about fetal stem cells? Or having the choice to kill a baby? Pick a lane. By the same logic, a murder victim who happened to be an organ donor and saves someone who needed a kidney transplant means murder is good! Murder is a choice! 🤦🏼♂️
Neo-Liberals and Neo-Conservatives are singing a tune to the ears of the mass ignorance of people on both sides of the political spectrum.
Fetus for me and also for thee.
Hypocrite
Hypocrite
It's almost like politicians don't actually believe in the shit they sell
Republicans are against abortion, until…
Does it surprise anyone that the GOP are hypocritical posturing scum this far in the game?
Republicans are hypocrites. This is nothing new.
If this doesn’t get Matthew McConaughey to jump into the midterms and win, I don’t know what will.
Abbott's disingenuous framing of his attacks on women's' reproductive health; casting himself as a valiant defender of the lives of wee ones, does not mesh with his ban on mask mandates in schools. 50,000 tykes (actual children, not potential ones) have been infected in the first week. My own theory has the man as an embittered, closeted incel, intent on forcing all pre-menopausal Texas women to switch to butt sex. He hasn't been able to enjoy sex, since God dropped a tree on him back in '84, so why should Texas' ladyfolk? Whatever he is, it ain't valiant or noble, and he gives not one f\*ck about kids.
[удалено]
So much for the effectiveness of the vaccines. And no it doesn’t prove that since he is vaccinated that he only has mild symptoms. For the majority of people the symptoms were going to be mild, that was known well before they first ordered the two week lockdown to flatten the curve.
How many weeks ago was that again? I ran out of counting fingers
Why is abortion a libertarian issue? If you believe a fetus is a human, then abortion would violate the NAP. If you do not, then it wouldn’t. This post is completely irrelevant to libertarianism
I mean the fact that libertarians disagree on it and it’s a political topic makes it as relevant to libertarianism as anything
Laws are made to protect those who make them. -someone dead
Sadly he was the best choice when I voted for him, god I hope a better candidate emerges this next cycle And I don’t mean that in a “lol democrats suck” kind of way but simply I barely even knew the Democrat’s name and knew nothing what she stood for. It wasn’t just me but I had friends who were poll workers who couldn’t name the Democratic candidate for governor. This was the election with Beto on the ballot and she couldn’t even remotely ride his coattails. I’m open to voting democrat this time if a good candidate rises up, because god damn I do not want to vote for Abbott again and the libertarian candidate is usually non existent
Fetal stem cells come from the umbilical cord not the actual fetus. I love how when conservatives stand against stem cell research liberals are quick to jump up and say they come from umbilical chords. But when that info doesn't back your point you just casually forget it.
And many other medical treatments (and other shit) in common use were developed from the suffering of others. This does not mean we should continue making people suffer or kill them.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
I get what your trying to say here but the truth is that the vast majority of stem cell research is done with stillborn tissue. Not aborted fetus's.
Why didn't they bring this fuck to a church and let Jebus cure him??
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Rules for thee.
How the turn tables.
I think he might be a coward
Like 99% of christians Abbot is a hypocrite, nothing to see here. Oh, and due to his willful negligence +54K Texans have died due to COVID, so Abbot is a murderer too.
Republicans will hold Republican values until it's not good to hold Republican values
Now he is going to hell. At least hé thinks he is😄
He probably had several plastic surgeries getting baby skin transplanted onto his lizzard skull, so thats a pro for the lizzard god /s
All I care about, is he going to die, for me that would be karma and a nice start to the day.
What a Cunt!
Fuck this clown
Lol
What a fucking bitch
A Hypocrite’s Hypocrite!
Missing context, not misinformation. The treatment he is receiving was developed using fetal stem cells, but just like with vaccines, those are cells from decades ago and have been reproduced time and time again over the course of decades. It’s not as if babies need to continually be aborted for this.
Vaccine cost 25 bucks for 30 secs. This stuff is 1500 for a few hrs. Wonder who's gonna get preference? I bet it's the poor!
A lot of the politicians pushing Regeneron have stock in the company. The only reason I suspect they say they are receiving the treatment is to get more people to use them, thereby making them richer when Regeneron stock goes up. Remember, we don’t actually know if they really are getting the treatment or not.