It's not. Previous studies have experimented with putting mitochondria from younger women into the eggs of another woman — initially this was to treat infertility (unproven effects) and now it is approved in England to stop mitochondrial disease from being passed to the children. This is not a big deal sci-fi…

This is tied to the technology behind the recent "three parent" child law that was just approved in England — the theory and procedure have been around for almost 20 years. The NY Times had an excellent write up about it last year.

Yup. I appreciate that you're not pulling punches, everyone should know what's being swept under the rug here.

Theoretically, you would freeze your eggs when you are young and fertile and then have them implanted later on when you are ready to have a child (this will happen more often as wealthy women decide to preventively freeze eggs just in case). So you're giving birth to 25 year old eggs from a 40 year old body, which…

No worries. Internet tone is hard and it's clear that we're both passionate about the same thing, on the same side. Keep fighting the good fight.

I don't use acronyms often but...literal LOL

Good luck!

I do that for a living. I'm not talking to the general populous, I was responding to a commenter on jezebel.com who I assumed had a grasp of the fact that plan b is not an abortifacient (since she directly mentioned that it is not) and detailing why religious folk claim, incorrectly, that it is.

I find the whole thing fascinating. How someone duped millions of people into just believing some new idea they completely pulled out of their asses.

haha I'm sorry! I got wrapped up in the fact that people in the thread seemed to think I was backing the argument and was more brusque to you than I intended. That was me being a dick, you have no reason to apologize.

That is a completely new idea. In the Jewish faith (so Old Testament style) abortions are not only sanctioned but are actually mandatory for the health of the mother, pretty much including even if she doesn't really want the kid. It's within the last century that this conception thing came about and it is not rooted…

An argument is any stance you take and debate with another human being. It doesn't have to be valid.

Literally no one is disagreeing with you. 60% or 80% or 10% it's all too much.

Oh agreed. The only reason I know that about Amnesty International v Fusion was because I wanted to know where the hell that cited number came from. I was just pointing out that it's not that it wasn't cited it's that the source is...questionable.

I know. That's all correct. I was just explaining their argument.

Dude, I'm in health care and a liberal and I've taught sexual health education for well over a decade. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm explaining their argument.

I'm not agreeing with the interpretation, but if there is a chance that it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg (and research has not conclusively said it doesn't), that is enough for people to rationalize that it qualifies as an abortion. I think it's incredibly dumb and when I teach sex ed emphasize up and…

Research hasn't proven that it doesn't. Facts do matter if you can offer facts. Otherwise they are easily manipulated by one side or the other.

Well, "no more" would be inappropriate wording becuase we don't know what is accurate but I was just saying she cited the number, not that I agree with it.

The 80% is "according to directors of migrant shelters interviewed by Fusion." Anna links it in the article. Fusion doesn't go into what this means — did they interview 2 shelters? 5? Every one in America? Do the directors communicate directly with the immigrants? What proportion of people crossing the border go…