# Can some pro-lifer explain this idiocy to me, please? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 26, 2001, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933 "2001-01-26T22:58:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/61 "2001-01-28T06:06:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by capacitor \* > \*\* > So the father can choose to give the dead child up to science, but have no factor in choosing whether the fetus should become a child in the first place. That is not a good point; this is considered paradox by people who are pro-life, and they are most unwilling do not subscribe to this. > \*\* Again, what some people feel about it shouldn’t factor in. There should be \* consistency \*. The fetuses have no \*\* legal \*\* status as anything other or greater than tissue. As for fathers having choice…it is a misfortune of biology that men cannot have their own children. Because this is so, yes, men’s potential children are at the mercy of the women who may bear them. Thank god this is \* finally \* true, since throughout most of recorded history, it has not been, and as a result, women have been legally little better than farm animals. stoid ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/62 "2001-01-28T06:18:42Z")
So womens right to choose is the only important right. We can get rid of all those other human rights and delegate them animal ones. Or maybe you are saying from abortion rights extend all other female rights. an ambigious, wrong statement ---
**Author:** ![super\_head](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@super\_head](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/super_head)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/63 "2001-01-28T06:35:12Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by mx-6_ \* > And by the way, nice job deleting your post where you called Bush a “feeble little brain”. > > It seems that you are living up to that slur lately. Um, just for the record, I just read this thread and the comment about Shrubya’s “feeble little brain” is right ther in Technicolor cinematic glory. Perhaps some instructions on using your web browser are in order? Just a thought. Have a nice day MX-6, oh, and, yes, I drive one. ---
**Author:** ![Flymaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c4cdca/32.png) [@Flymaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flymaster)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/64 "2001-01-28T06:42:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by capacitor \* > \*\*Again this is a world-view problem, not an idiocy. If one regards the fetus as tissue, then as a collected tissue, one can say, it is to be examined by scientific institutions, to be what benefits can be derived from it. If one regards the fetus as a life to itself, then one would regard this collection of dead/murdered fetuses for research as worse than Nazi science, and even worse yet, sanctioned until a few days ago by the government. \*\* Then why is there no movement to stop the use of murder victim’s bodies in scientific research? There’s absolutly nothing stopping this from happening. The next of kin had no say in whether the person was killed, but they’re still allowed to donate the body to science. Surely nobody considers this to be “worse than Nazi science.” But it happens quite frequently. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/65 "2001-01-29T05:06:13Z")
> [@](#): > > And you must not be that familiar with me, because I get a great deal of grief for the fact that I do tend to believe in the absolute rightness of what I believe to be right. You know what? GWB gets a great deal of grief for the fact that he tends to believe in the absolute rightness of what he believes to be right. Banning fetal research is not idiocy any more than banning animal research is idiocy. I don’t happen to agree with the people who want to ban animal research, but I can certainly see their point. The world isn’t black and white but shades of gray. ---
**Author:** ![Flymaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c4cdca/32.png) [@Flymaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flymaster)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/66 "2001-01-29T05:36:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by PunditLisa \* > **Banning fetal research is not idiocy any more than banning animal research is idiocy. I don’t happen to agree with the people who want to ban animal research, but I can certainly see their point.** Except, of course, that the animals are alive, and, barring the research, would just roam wild and free on the plains. The fetus would still be quite dead. So, in animal research there is an “evil” (FWIW, quite an acceptable evil, if it’s an evil at all), but in fetal research, there is ZERO harm done. Whether there is is an evil in abortion is another debate entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/67 "2001-01-29T05:54:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Flymaster \* > \*\*[ > So, in animal research there is an “evil” (FWIW, quite an acceptable evil, if it’s an evil at all), but in fetal research, there is ZERO harm done. Whether there is is an evil in abortion is another debate entirely. \*\* Dammit, Flymaster! You keep beatin’ me to the punch! > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by PunditLisa \* > \*\* > You know what? GWB gets a great deal of grief for the fact that he tends to believe in the absolute rightness of what he believes to be right. > > The world isn’t black and white but shades of gray. \*\* I haven’t noticed Da Shrub getting grief for that at all. About the only grief I see himgetting is for appearing stupid. Aside from that, I think he’s getting WAY too much room. And while the world is indeed many shades of gray, there are matters which are black and white, or nearly so. As flymaster has said, comparing cnimal research and fetal tissue research is no comparison at all. When is someone who is against abortion going to admit that what happens to the fetuses is actually WORSE than using them for reasearch into curing disease, if you are talking about treating them with any kind of consideration? Used in research, their deaths have ultimately served some higher purpose (without that having been the intention), otherwise they become garbage. And those who agree with this decision are in fact saying: “We would rather the fetuses were treated as garbage.” How can you possibly deny that this is 100% political? I’ll be happy to debate the relative merits of using this as a form of political manipulation, if I could just get someone to \* admit \* it. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/68 "2001-01-29T06:33:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > I’ll be happy to debate the relative merits of using this as a form of political manipulation, if I could just get someone to \* admit \* it. > \*\* How much federal dollars go towards fetal tissue research programs? Marc ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/69 "2001-01-29T07:17:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\* > > I’ll be happy to debate the relative merits of using this as a form of political manipulation, if I could just get someone to \* admit \* it. > > \*\* > > How much federal dollars go towards fetal tissue research programs? > > Marc \*\* I do not know. I’ll try to find out. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/70 "2001-01-29T07:43:12Z")
[http://www.harcourtcollege.com/lifesci/bioweb/depts/featured/jan00.html](http://www.harcourtcollege.com/lifesci/bioweb/depts/featured/jan00.html) > [@](#): > > \*\* > However, due to the ongoing controversy concerning abortions, research on fetal or embryonic tissue has encountered some roadblocks. In late 1988, Robert Windom, the then-undersecretary of Health and Human Services (the agency responsible for allocating most of the government funds for medical research), placed a moratorium on using federal funds for fetal tissue research. Because the cost of the research is so high, private funding is inadequate. Therefore, the moratorium effectively ended any further research into this area. At the same time the moratorium was imposed, an advisory committee was formed at the federal level to address concerns over the use of fetal tissue. Their recommendations included guidelines regarding the source of the tissue and how it should most appropriately be used. One of the concerns raised was that the potential for treatments that call for using fetal cells as a cure might create a demand for an “abortion-for-profit” market. The guidelines by the committee specifically prohibit monetary compensation for the donor and even identifying the donor. These guidelines are still recognized and honored today by those doing any research using these tissues. > > \*\* [http://www.naral.org/mediaresources/fact/fetal\_tissue.html](http://www.naral.org/mediaresources/fact/fetal_tissue.html) > [@](#): > > \*\* > the National Institutes of Health (NIH) formed an advisory panel to determine the appropriateness of fetal tissue research from induced abortions, including whether such research would encourage women to have abortions, as alleged by anti-choice forces. The NIH advisory committee found no empirical evidence to support this claim and, by a vote of 19-2, determined that fetal tissue research from induced abortions was acceptable public policy provided that the abortion decision was made separately from the decision to donate fetal tissue and that abortion procedures were not altered for the purpose of obtaining fetal tissue for transplantation or medical research.14 > > - In late 1989, however, Louis W. Sullivan, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, extended the ban on fetal tissue transplantation research from induced abortions indefinitely, bowing to pressure from the Bush Administration and Congress to avoid activities related to abortion.15 > \*\* But it’s not \*political \* , don’t be silly! :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > \*\* > In 1990, Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) introduced the Research Freedom Act, a bill designed to end the ban on federal funding for fetal tissue transplantation research and to prohibit the executive branch from imposing policy on the NIH.17 Although the Act passed both houses of Congress, it was vetoed by President Bush > > \*\* Good to know that the Shrub is doing exactly what Daddy would want. [http://www.laskerfoundation.org/fundingfirst/comment/16/comm2.html](http://www.laskerfoundation.org/fundingfirst/comment/16/comm2.html) > [@](#): > > \*\* > This potential has prompted a range of interests to come out in support of federal funding for stem cell research. More than 50 disease advocates and scientific societies, representing such concerns as diabetes, blindness, Parkinson’s disease, glaucoma, AIDS, Down Syndrome, cystic fibrosis, stroke, lymphoma, infertility and cancer–as well as professional groups that focus on such issues as cell biology, aging, microbiology, ophthalmology, cardiology, pediatrics and reproductive medicine–recently sent a letter to members of Congress urging them to support federal funding for this research. > > The letter argued that the benefits of stem cell research can be realized much faster, and the ethical issues monitored much more closely, if the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is able to fund scientists whose research involves the use of stem cells. > > \*\* But ya know…it’s so much more important to make sure that the fetal tissue is burned as garbage, isn’t it? And this is the way it USED to be: > [@](#): > > \*\* > Under federal law, as long investigators have no connection with the abortion that provides the tissue source, and follow a number of other legal and regulatory requirements, their work can be publicly funded. > \*\* [http://www.thekingsnetwork.com/stopftr/ftrnew39.htm](http://www.thekingsnetwork.com/stopftr/ftrnew39.htm) > [@](#): > > \*\* > In response to the apparent success of the La Roza transplants and initial hints of a possible breakthrough cure for Parkinson’s disease, U.S. medical scientists had decided to join the race to cure this terribly debilitating ailment through fetal neuro-tissue transplants. They realized, however, that any truly legitimate effort would require federal funding. It was a typical request from the National Institute of Health (NIH) for funding for human fetal tissue transplantation research that ignited the fetal tissue research controversy in the United States.(31) > > In March 1988, Robert Windom, a strong Right to Life supporter, rejected the NIH’s funding request and issued a moratorium on federal funding for research on fetal tissue obtained through induced abortions.(34) This effectively stopped all research on fetal tissue in federally funded laboratories. \*Even though the moratorium only applied to federal funding, in reality it stopped all legitimate research involving fetal tissue because of the enormous costs associated with a single operation easily exceeding $50,000. \*Private researchers were discouraged and unwilling to take a chance on such expensive experiments without the likelihood of being reimbursed for their time and expense.(35 > \*\* So, Marc… does this satisfy your curiosity about whether federal funding makes a difference or not? Looks like it does to me. The whole thing makes me sick. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/71 "2001-01-29T08:16:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoid \* > \*\* > So, Marc… does this satisfy your curiosity about whether federal funding makes a difference or not? Looks like it does to me. > > The whole thing makes me sick. > \*\* If my question had been “Does federal funding make a difference or not” then your answer might have been helpful. But my question was how much federal dollars go towards fetal research programs? (Tsk tsk that’s not right. I should have asked how many not how much.) Do you have any idea how much fetal research is being done in the private sector? Marc \<-----who’s all for fetal tissue research ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/72 "2001-01-29T08:40:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > \*\* > If my question had been “Does federal funding make a difference or not” then your answer might have been helpful. But my question was how much federal dollars go towards fetal research programs? (Tsk tsk that’s not right. I should have asked how many not how much.) > > Do you have any idea how much fetal research is being done in the private sector? > \*\* Well, since you are not on the opposite side of the debate I will leave it up to you to find your own answers. You have at your disposal the same resource everyone here does: the Internet. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/73 "2001-01-29T08:58:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoid \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > > \*\* > > If my question had been “Does federal funding make a difference or not” then your answer might have been helpful. But my question was how much federal dollars go towards fetal research programs? (Tsk tsk that’s not right. I should have asked how many not how much.) > > > > Do you have any idea how much fetal research is being done in the private sector? > > \*\* > > Well, since you are not on the opposite side of the debate I will leave it up to you to find your own answers. You have at your disposal the same resource everyone here does: the Internet. > > \*\* HA HA HA HA!!! I guess I should have expected that. At least this time you didn’t say “I’ll get back to you with more info in a few days.” By the way I’m not exactly on your side of the debate either. While I have no problems with the legality of abortion or fetal tissue research I might object to federal money being spent on it. Marc ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/74 "2001-01-29T14:25:36Z")
Well, actually, Stoid, the moon IS made from Cheez Whiz. They had a big superbowl party up there last night with a giant bag of nachos. Sorry. You are right, after the “fetus” is dead, why Not use it for good? I am stumped by our President. I know the right wing got him elected, but by pandering to them so much, isn’t he saying in effect, “I don’t care if I’m relected in 4 years?” Since theres no way he will be if he keeps this up. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/75 "2001-01-29T15:32:35Z")
> [@](#): > > Except, of course, that the animals are alive, and, barring the research, would just roam wild and free on the plains. The fetus would still be quite dead. Well, yes, because mom murdered him. Otherwise, these children would also be alive to roam wild and free. > [@](#): > > So, in animal research there is an “evil”, but in fetal research, there is ZERO harm done. > > Whether there is an evil in abortion is another debate entirely. Nope, you can’t separate the two. You’ve heard of the notion of fruit of a poisonous tree, haven’t you? G.W. is using this premise. That is, there can be NO good from the deaths of these infants. This concept is hardly novel. As you may know, there were a lot of experiments done on the people in concentration camps during WWII. The medical community has absolutely, unequivocably rejected these studies. Why? Because of the horrific circumstances surrounding the studies. Dr. Josef Mengele may have been the best research scientist in the world. There may be useful data in those studies that could help cure leukemia or cancer. The world has said loudly and clearly that IT DOESN’T MATTER. We reject these studies based on principal. You may think that it’s ridiculous to “throw away” all this data. After all, a body is just a collection of tissue, right? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/76 "2001-01-29T16:10:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by PunditLisa \* > \*\*As you may know, there were a lot of experiments done on the people in concentration camps during WWII. The medical community has absolutely, unequivocably rejected these studies. > > Why? Because of the horrific circumstances surrounding the studies. Dr. Josef Mengele may have been the best research scientist in the world. There may be useful data in those studies that could help cure leukemia or cancer. > > The world has said loudly and clearly that IT DOESN’T MATTER. We reject these studies based on principal. > > You may think that it’s ridiculous to “throw away” all this data. After all, a body is just a collection of tissue, right? \*\* qualitative difference - the Mengele experiments were conducted on living people. Fetal tissue research is conducted on tissue from an unliving source. I understand ( but don’t agree with)the premise behind the ban - that any good can come of the abortion may in some way encourage some one to get an abortion. However. I believe that it’s more similar to those tragic people who have had a loved one die and, through that tragedy, they’ve elected to dontate tissue/organs for research or transplant. Consider this, if you will. This same ban on utilization of tissue for research would be in effect on **all** fetal tissue, so that some one who’d miscarried and wanted to see some good come from their personal tragedy would be turned away as well. By the way- what’s the name of the rule that says the first person to mention the Nazi’s has lost the debate? ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/77 "2001-01-29T17:23:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Flymaster \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by PunditLisa \* > > **We don’t think dead babies should be put in the dumpster or cut up into pieces to be used for medical research. They aren’t trash.** > > Then he should have made it illegal to do this. Don’t just stop funding stem cell research for any reason, even if the “child’s” next of kin donates the “body” to science. \*\* Just to clarify… Bush’s move doesn’t eliminate funding of stem cell research. It only affects the funding of _fetal_ stem cell research. Stem cells can still be obtained from other sources, such as umbilical cords. For a discussion of alternatives to fetal stem cell research, check out: [http://www.str.org/free/bioethics/stemcell.pdf](http://www.str.org/free/bioethics/stemcell.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Flymaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c4cdca/32.png) [@Flymaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flymaster)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/78 "2001-01-29T18:19:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by PunditLisa \* > \*\*Well, yes, because mom murdered him. Otherwise, these children would also be alive to roam wild and free. \*\* Assuming that abortion IS murder: why can’t another family member (the father) who didn’t murder the child, and was AGAINST the abortion, donate the body to science? It happens all the time with real murder victims. Why not with fetal murder victims? > [@](#): > > \*\*Nope, you can’t separate the two. \*\* I just did. See above. > [@](#): > > **You’ve heard of the notion of fruit of a poisonous tree, haven’t you? G.W. is using this premise. That is, there can be NO good from the deaths of these infants.** So you would rather see these children die totally in vain, and be tossed into the hospital incinerator than have the cure for hundreds of diseases come from their deaths? That’s rather twisted. > [@](#): > > \*\*As you may know, there were a lot of experiments done on the people in concentration camps during WWII. The medical community has absolutely, unequivocably rejected these studies. > > Why? Because of the horrific circumstances surrounding the studies. Dr. Josef Mengele may have been the best research scientist in the world. There may be useful data in those studies that could help cure leukemia or cancer.\*\* To call these “medical studies” is to call Stone Cold Steve Austin a Greco Roman Wrestling champion. The cure for cancer does not, will not, and cannot come from sewing dog’s tails onto prisoners. It CAN come from a controlled experiment on the DNA and cells of what would otherwise be yesterday’s garbage. > [@](#): > > \*\*You may think that it’s ridiculous to “throw away” all this data. After all, a body is just a collection of tissue, right? \*\* Had the Nazis discovered the cure for cancer, you can be damned sure that this data would not have been thrown out, any more than their work on jet and rocket propulsion was thrown out. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/79 "2001-01-29T18:20:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > \*\* > > HA HA HA HA!!! I guess I should have expected that. At least this time you didn’t say “I’ll get back to you with more info in a few days.” > > \*\* Marc… Do you have a point here? You ask for information the first time, I tell you I don’t know and I’ll go get it, and I produce it 30 minutes later. You don’t like the info I provide and ask for more, and I’m supposed to jump and go dig it up…why? Are you the poster boy for the digitally impaired? I’m not your personal librarian, go look it up for yourself. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/80 "2001-01-29T18:41:34Z")
I would guess that the ban on federally funded research using aborted fetal tissue is based on many of the same arguments that we use when we ban elephant ivory, tropical hardwoods, the products of slave labor, or research done at Auschwitz. Why not use the ivory? The elephant is already dead. Why not buy the desk made of Madagascaran teak? That tree ain’t gonna grow anymore. Why not try to bring some good out of the loss of the elephant/tree/the slaves’ loss of human rights/Jew/whatever. Or for that matter, suppose some Mandarin peasant doesn’t believe that girl children are as valuable as boys. So he cuts his daughter’s throat, or sells her for use in kiddie porn snuff films. I may disagree with his belief that girls are disposable, but isn’t that an issue to be determined between the peasant and his doctor? Who am I to interfere with this very personal, private decision? And once she is dead, why not use her tissues for whatever needs looking into? Maybe we could save some lives! Stoid sez: > [@](#): > > Well, Emark, you gave the exact lame-ass reason I asked you not to give. > > ``` > You don't want women profiting from their abortions? Don't pay them for the tissue - that's a really tough > solution, isn't it? One that was just too complex for Dubya's feeeble litlte brain, is that it? > > ``` Isn’t this a little like saying graverobbing will reduce the incidence of murder? She further sez: > [@](#): > > Could I possibly abhor and despise this pretender to the presidency any more than I already do? I didn’t think > so…and then each new day brings a brand new reason. Prick. Note to Stoid: [ul] - The sun rises in the east. - The Pope is a Catholic. - George W. Bush is anti-abortion. [/ul] I realize we may be out of the habit of expecting that a President will attempt to fulfill his promises as a result of the last eight years, but George W.'s position on abortion is not exactly a bolt from the blue to those who have been paying attention. I mention this to forestall the next post of horrified surprise that he supports educational reform and tax cuts. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933.md?page=5)