A hypothetical Zika-virus question for the anti-abortion crowd

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Except it is the liberals on here that want to come up with some type of obtainable solution. It is the conservatives that want an endless stream of brain damaged babies.

Of course they do. They're hoping the babies have the CBD. :)
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
I've already said I fully support and want you to abort. We wouldn't want society to burdened with your offspring. We already have enough unwanted kids that the parents don't love and want dead, we don't need you to add more.
If this is what you believe, then why - in your previous post - did you write:

No, if the parents don't want the child and care more about their money than the life they created, they should carry the child to term and kill it themselves. Look the child in the eye as you take away its life. Doing it via abortion is a fucking coward and we shouldn't pander to their emotions to make it easier on them. Own your choice to kill.
?????
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91

Oxitec, the company behind the trials, are attempting to reduce the population of the Aedes aegypti mosquitoes which are the major vectors for carrying mosquito borne diseases like dengue, chikungunya and Zika by creating genetically engineering sterile males.

Uh huh and if say, the last remaining males who aren't sterile carry a gene that increases virus transmission? Oops.

Its not entirely implausible. GMOs should be more confined to the lab. Bacteria producing insulin in an industrial setting is one thing. Messing with the reproduction of a wild species is completely different.

Same with all the cold virus myths. Rhinovirus and such replicate best at 91.6F. Someone who is a carrier breathing cold air can see rhinovirus populations hit 100x, then you throw an immune response, or stay immune but give it to someone else anyway. Then there are the geniuses who go "you can't get the cold from the cold, its caused by the virus." Derp. But temperature is a big factor in pathogen virulence.

There is actually alot going on in the gut of a mosquito wrt to potential for virulence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19737112

This selection can be for either higher or lower virulence, depending on the interaction between the effect of the transgene and the trade-offs in epidemiological traits, highlighting the need for detailed quantitative data to understand more fully the impact of mosquito transgenesis on dengue virulence. Dengue virulence in mosquitoes can be selected on by transgenic strategies of blocking transmission, decreased mosquito biting, increased mosquito background mortality, and increased mosquito infection-induced mortality. Our results suggest that dengue control strategies that raise mosquito background mortality or mosquito infection-induced mortality pose less risk of causing increased virulence to humans than strategies that block transmission or reduce mosquito biting.

Key word there is "risk" because there is a probability that it can happen.

Which is why I pose the question. Has there ever been an example of Zika spreading like this before? Its possible to screw up and actually increase virulence.

Its possible to have just screwed with millions of years of evolution. "Mosquitoes that carried dengue fever virulence were more fit and were preferable to mosquitoes that carried Zika virulence factors because they fucking killed their host population."

With ebola, you knew it was going to be more self contained because ebola has such a high mortality rate that an epidemic burns itself out. An ebola strain with a lower mortality rate would actually be more of a concern than one with a high mortality rate, IMO. This is how nature works. The most successful virus is actually the cold. Ebola will burn itself out everytime. Rhinovirus doesn't kill you because it wants to be nice. It just wants to spread.

This seems bad, in my opinion. The Zika thing. Something that targets pregnant women and affects fertility is no joke.
 
Last edited:
Dec 10, 2005
23,984
6,786
136
Uh huh and if say, the last remaining males who aren't sterile carry a gene that increases virus transmission? Oops.
Evidence in support of this hypothesis? What's to stop such a gene from arising naturally in the wild compared to in the lab? These mosquitoes haven't seen widespread use and mosquitoes don't travel far from where they do get released. I don't see how such an incident could cause such a rapid spread given the limited area that mosquitoes travel over their life. Plus, genes would only spread rapidly if they provided a competetive advantage. The more likely explanation is lack of natural immunity, coupled with greater world travel, and an existing mosquito problem allowed the disease to move from one region of the world to another.

Key word there is "risk" because there is a probability that it can happen.

Which is why I pose the question. Has there ever been an example of Zika spreading like this before? Its possible to screw up and actually increase virulence.
It may not have been a problem before because a) it was relegated to Africa, so people weren't paying as much attention and b) there may be populations with a more natural immunity. In the Americas, Zika is non-native, so that natural immunity is likely lacking.

There may be "risk", but there is "risk" in everything. You have to look at it as a whole and in comparison to other actions. Certainly, limiting mosquito populations through a sterile mosquito is far less risky than chemical spraying (which targets a broader spectrum of insects) or doing nothing and allowing other diseases to propagate (eg: yellow fever, dengue). You can't just come up with absurd possibilities and then shout "we can't do this ever". Risk assessments should be grounded in reality.
 
Last edited:

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
Evidence in support of this hypothesis? What's to stop such a gene from arising naturally in the wild compared to in the lab? These mosquitoes haven't seen widespread use and mosquitoes don't travel far from where they do get released. I don't see how such an incident could cause such a rapid spread given the limited area that mosquitoes travel over their life. Plus, genes would only spread rapidly if they provided a competetive advantage. The more likely explanation is lack of natural immunity, coupled with greater world travel, and an existing mosquito problem allowed the disease to move from one region of the world to another.

Because the same ecological niche still exists. If you knock out mosquitoes that carry dengue fever genetically, then some other phenotype will take their place. You have to be careful how you control natural populations. Messing with reproduction of a wild species is incredibly dumb, IMO. This isn't just spraying them with insecticide and whichever ones come into contact with it die. Targeting a broader spectrum of insects is likely better.

It may not have been a problem before because a) it was relegated to Africa, so people weren't paying as much attention and b) there may be populations with a more natural immunity. In the Americas, Zika is non-native, so that natural immunity is likely lacking.

There may be "risk", but there is "risk" in everything. You have to look at it as a whole and in comparison to other actions. Certainly, limiting mosquito populations through a sterile mosquito is far less risky than chemical spraying (which targets a broader spectrum of insects) or doing nothing and allowing other diseases to propagate (eg: yellow fever, dengue). You can't just come up with absurd possibilities and then shout "we can't do this ever". Risk assessments should be grounded in reality.

Pfft no they just wanted to play with genetics. 3rd World countries are a bonanza for dumb ideas like Hepatitis B vaccine potatoes. Cause everybody needs an immune response with every bite. Why not H1N1 in your milk to strengthen your immune system and give you a slight fever and headache everyday. Sound good? It probably wouldn't be that difficult to get a cow to produce HA1 in their milk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC549291/
 
Last edited:
Feb 4, 2009
34,494
15,729
136
Even if once you run out, you kill off everyone? If I am the bread winner of my home, and I give away all my money and then run out. I will lose my house and everything I own. Everyone dependent on me will suffer. If a whole society does this, then literally we will see people suffer. It appears kind in the short run, in the long run its monstrous.

That's giving until suicide, not giving until it hurts.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,785
6,032
136
Just saw on the news...there's a case in Dallas where the virus was passed via sex transmission.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,329
7,985
136
I still say once the virus encounters modern medicine it won't be such a big problem
The virus doesn't need a cure, it's pretty mild in itself. The trick is not to get it in the first place.

Uh huh and if say, the last remaining males who aren't sterile carry a gene that increases virus transmission? Oops.

AFAIK it's the female mosquitoes that bite and transmit the disease.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
If people decide bringing to term they should be financially responsible.

But the anti-abortion crowd wants to FORCE women to bring Zika-fetuses to term; no "people decide to bring to term" involved. Yet - at least in this thread - they refuse to provide details as to how to pay for the care of all of those severely-damaged babies that they would force on the rest of us.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
AFAIK it's the female mosquitoes that bite and transmit the disease.

Derp. We're talking about genetic traits across the population that increase virulence. If you knock out one certain phenotype of dengue virulence in mosquitoes its possible for another phenotype to be confered an advantage and fill that ecologcal niche.

The reason knocking out the males is an issue is because just a few males can spread their genes to numerous females quickly in the wild. Its always this way. Remaining males can spread a trait extremely fast if a large portion of the male population is wiped out. Which is exactly what they did, stupidly.

Super derp.

But I'm not surprised.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,329
7,985
136
Derp. We're talking about genetic traits across the population that increase virulence. If you knock out one certain phenotype of dengue virulence in mosquitoes its possible for another phenotype to be confered an advantage and fill that ecologcal niche.

How can changing the genetics of the male mosquito affect the virulence of a disease that the female mosquitoes carry given that the changes to the male mosquito stop the changes being passed on to the females?
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,956
27,638
136
But the anti-abortion crowd wants to FORCE women to bring Zika-fetuses to term; no "people decide to bring to term" involved. Yet - at least in this thread - they refuse to provide details as to how to pay for the care of all of those severely-damaged babies that they would force on the rest of us.

I heard an interesting radio clip yesterday. Someone went to a pro-life rally. Protesters want everyone to carry every fertilized egg/fetus to term no matter what yet none of them were willing to support/adopt unwanted babies. I'll have to record the clip and post.
 

chipwitch

Senior member
Jan 28, 2016
297
0
0
I heard an interesting radio clip yesterday. Someone went to a pro-life rally. Protesters want everyone to carry every fertilized egg/fetus to term no matter what yet none of them were willing to support/adopt unwanted babies. I'll have to record the clip and post.

That's not a new position you know? LOTS of conservatives think just that. Was there something else special about your particular clip?
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,613
13,296
146
I heard an interesting radio clip yesterday. Someone went to a pro-life rally. Protesters want everyone to carry every fertilized egg/fetus to term no matter what yet none of them were willing to support/adopt unwanted babies. I'll have to record the clip and post.

That's not a new position you know? LOTS of conservatives think just that. Was there something else special about your particular clip?

When you know how far the pro lifers are willing to go this isn't surprising at all.

Brain dead woman used to incubate non viable fetus against wishes . Took 2 months and a court order for that one.

Drs and mother excommunicated for aborting twins of 9 year olds rape victim
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,943
541
126
I heard an interesting radio clip yesterday. Someone went to a pro-life rally. Protesters want everyone to carry every fertilized egg/fetus to term no matter what yet none of them were willing to support/adopt unwanted babies. I'll have to record the clip and post.

What people need to realize is that the anti-choice position isn't about "life" or "babies" -- it's about punishing women for having sex. It's about elevating the risks to sexually active women in attempt to control their sexuality.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
It's looking increasingly like the Zika virus can cause a particularly severe form of microcephaly in infants whose mothers were infected in the first trimester. And even infants who externally appear normal may suffer from profound damage caused by the virus.

Story.



Which leads to the following question: Suppose a rampant epidemic of Zika-virus infections severely damages 10% of all babies during the first trimester. Obviously, bringing to term all such babies and caring for them over their entire lifetimes would represent an almost impossible burden on both the parents and society. Suppose also that a test given at - say - 20 weeks gestational age (pre-viability) can reliably detect fetuses who have been severely damaged by the virus. Should the mothers be allowed to abort these fetuses?

No. For the same reason we shouldn't be allowed to kill anyone else who's developmentally disabled.

A related question: Assuming you are adamantly against allowing abortion in such cases, how do you propose that society should bear the cost of caring for these babies?

The same way we expect society to bear the cost of anyone else who's developmentally disabled.

Or are these children better off dead in your opinion?

I know for sure how liberals will answer, so this question is specifically directed at conservatives. And don't give just a yes or no answer. JUSTIFY your answer.

On the contrary, I think the justification is yours to make, considering your apparent prescription of death for those who are less able than you.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
What people need to realize is that the anti-choice position isn't about "life" or "babies" -- it's about punishing women for having sex. It's about elevating the risks to sexually active women in attempt to control their sexuality.

Is making men pay for child support for any kids not aborted likewise an "attempt to control their sexuality" or is that a feature that only works on women?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
Is making men pay for child support for any kids not aborted likewise an "attempt to control their sexuality" or is that a feature that only works on women?

The non-custodial parent has to pay child support, it is not based on sex.

Next question!
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
The non-custodial parent has to pay child support, it is not based on sex.

Next question!

You needed to have sex to get the child that support is paid towards and no matter which parent pays it. Thus it's just as much "punishment for having sex" as any abortion restrictions. More so if you think about it since pregnancy only lasts 9 months and child support 18 years or more.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,309
1,209
126
No. For the same reason we shouldn't be allowed to kill anyone else who's developmentally disabled.

Conservatives are always the same.
1] Force poor people to have their unwanted baby against their will by making abortion difficult/illegal
2] Do everything in their power to ensure that the poor people with dependent children get the absolute minimum of state aid and grumble mightily at that.

Conclusion: Christians love lots of poor miserable people around. It gives them somebody to blame for their problems. They seem to LOVE the unborn children of ghetto people.... once they are born, the love morphs into hatred instantly.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Conservatives are always the same.
1] Force poor people to have their unwanted baby against their will by making abortion difficult/illegal
2] Do everything in their power to ensure that the poor people with dependent children get the absolute minimum of state aid and grumble mightily at that.

Conclusion: Christians love lots of poor miserable people around. It gives them somebody to blame for their problems. They seem to LOVE the unborn children of ghetto people.... once they are born, the love morphs into hatred instantly.

Both 1 and 2 have in common taking accountability for one's actions, something leftists don't believe in and do everything in their power to avoid. After all, "it takes a village" and all that, paying for children is someone else's responsibility since they have more money and don't deserve it anyway.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
You needed to have sex to get the child that support is paid towards and no matter which parent pays it. Thus it's just as much "punishment for having sex" as any abortion restrictions. More so if you think about it since pregnancy only lasts 9 months and child support 18 years or more.

So what? You implied that men were somehow unfairly targeted by child support payments, which is untrue. The law is entirely gender blind.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,309
1,209
126
Both 1 and 2 have in common taking accountability for one's actions, something leftists don't believe in and do everything in their power to avoid. After all, "it takes a village" and all that, paying for children is someone else's responsibility since they have more money and don't deserve it anyway.

When was the last time a Christian took accountability for the absolute carnage they have caused in America?