Even assuming that this holds logically (which it doesn’t, as Stoid pointed out), yes, if a mother murders her child, the next of kin (say, the father), can donate the body to science.
Bush’s plan would deny money even if the father who was against the abortion gave consent.
Lynn Bodoni:“mx-6*, do you like posting here? Do you want to continue to do so? Then heed the moderator’s warnings.”
Of course I would like to continue posting here. How do you feel that I disregarded the mod? Because after calling Stoid what he/she called GW Bush I haven’t called anyone names.
Have I?
I’m still wondering why Stoid is avoiding my posts. So far I have received 1 reply. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ to be exact but nothing else.
I will assume that this thread is closed to me since Stoid has nothing to say and is only arguing on less important grounds with the other posters.
As if the original question was the legality of abortion. Give me a break. We all know that abortion is legal, so why debate that now?
I gave a very reasonable answer to the original question but Stoid chooses to “troll” on without answering it.
I get a zzzzzzzzzzzz.
OK but at least I can still hold my position. There has been no post that has challenged it yet.
And that is what Stoid asked of this thread. Right?
Wasn’t this thread called “Can some pro-lifer explain this idiocy to me, please?”
I guess that Stoid wasn’t looking for an explanation though. Just an argument that she could conceivably win.
Oh well, I guess that my argument was innapropriate and I should know better than to challenge next time!
Yes it is. By the same 5-4 margain that gave us Pres. GW Bush. Don’t lean to hard on that whole “law of the land” arguement. You might sound like a GOP’er soon.
If this is true, then how can someone who shoots a pregnant woman and causes the death of her unborn child be charged with murder? Either its a blob of cells or its a person deserved of rights in our system of justice. Which is it Stoid?
First off, I dare you to point to any law that says this. If you can not, then you must retract this statement.
Secondly, donations of tissue to science (at least for those among us who are least given the chance to make our wishes known) are not even that simple. In the state I live in, even though I might have a donor sticker on my license, if I never stated that fact to others (family members), I would not have my “tissues” harvested.
As I said before, the powers of the next of kin may be limited. I will defer to your states laws (Whoa, state’s rights. What an idea!). Even so there is a very big difference between the two: one lived life, no matter how long or short, the other never even had the chance. Before you so callously (sp?) dismiss the rights of the unborn to decide what should happen to their body, ask yourself: are you willing to make the same choice for someone that just happened to be 6 months older? How about 6 years? how about 60? As far as I can tell you view everyone as “tissue”. Too bad.
It should bring you great joy to learn that we conservatives are infuriated with his “uniter, not a divider” crap. We consider him to be pandering to the left big time.
In this OP issue, I’m pro-choice and against this Bush decision, but the logic for those on that side seems clear: if you think abortion is murder, than you put obstacles to abortion in wherever you can, and that includes diminishing the values of abortion, including this research.
There sure seem to be a lot of folks who think you’ll be charged with murder if you kill someone else’s fetus. In fact that’s only the case in some parts of the US. [This article]((http://www.nesl.edu/lawrev/vol32/vol32-2/LEONARD.HTM) has a lot more detail on the subject (it’s a few years old, but probably still broadly accurate).
I’ll ignore the false dichotomy in your penultimate sentence above.
Despite your insistence, I frankly doubt that it is that cut and dried. Indeed, that is a fault in the nature of the agument. At what point in time does a blob of cells evolve to the point where its humanity must be respected? Recent research indicates that women who use no birth control become pregnant rather more frequently than we thought, the body has mechanisms to recognize that the foetus is off to a false start, and shucks it. Surely there could be no issue with using cells from a “blob” than could not develop into a person, regardless?
Nonetheless, the research will happen, if not here, then elsewhere. Bush is indeed pandering to the pro-life right, but it is a fig leaf, nothing more. He has bills due from every coalition of yahoos and nutbars that supported him, because each and every one can say “without us, you wouldn’t have gotten there”.
As a side note, if you guys don’t stop picking on my love slave, I will be forced to take steps. You have been warned.
I’m enjoying this thread, and am not much of a debater, but I do feel like I need to respond because, Stoid, you appear absolutely convinced that there is only one side to this issue that any sane, logical person would take, and anyone who doesn’t take that side MUST be out of their gourd. (Interesting thoughts here all around from Dopers, BTW).
Stoid, I know you feel passionately about your beliefs and political moves people make, but really, not all the people who are against fetal tissue research are being knee-jerks and posturing for political gain.
I don’t like the idea in general. It’s disturbing to see this research as being cast in the light of “well, the horrific scenario [abortion] happened ANYWAY, why not make the best of it and derive some benefit from it?”
To me this is an excuse of conscience: “Why not mitigate the negative?” Because I think the negative should stand out in all its horrible, unmitigated infamy.
Mind, I’m not saying I think abortions should be outlawed, but I think if we want to see fewer of them happen we shouldn’t start going down the road of associating it with positives after the fact. This to me has the effect of whitewashing or “sanitizing” the original deed.
I’m DEFINETLY willing to make the same choice. Hell…it IS just a lump of tissue, once the brain is dead. Whatever the family wants to do with the corpse is fine with me, as long as it isn’t a public health hazard. If it can be shown that their EATING it won’t cause a hazard to public health, I say break out the marinade. It’s just a lump of tissue, and I can see no logical reason around that. At least one that doesn’t involve god. And our government should NOT be making laws about god.
Court after court, when faced with abortion questions, has repeatedly affirmed a woman’s right to choose. It ain’t goin’ away.
Please. This is not the debate, and I’m not going to let you force it into being the debate.
But for the record, while I am pro-choice, I happen to believe that there is a point at which it does become immoral and indefensible to choose abortion for anything other than health reasons (mother or baby). I put that point around the 5th month. For ME, it is pretty disgusting to abort any fetus over 3 months, because after that point they are just too far along for it not to be pretty nasty business. I am not a fan of partial-birth abortion. HOWEVER… I would not impose MY beliefs and feelings on others. I do believe that it is a woman’s right to make that decision for herself. She has to make the decision she has to live with. While it disturbs ME personally, I’m not going to let that have ANY influence over the decision to use that tissue/dead baby, (call it what you will, it’s dead so it doesn’t matter) to further the health and well-being of all humanity.
No I mustn’t. Not all facts are codified into law. What IS codified into law is a woman’s right to choose to abort her fetus before it is born. It is not treated as a person by the law, there is no coroner involved, it doesn’t get a death certificate. It is treated as “medical waste”. It is treated as tissue. Them’s the facts.
Better watch your language there, you might undercut your own arguments. If it never “lived” or had “a life”, how can it be killing a person to abort it? How can it be anything OTHER than tissue? Hmmm. Ahh…language.
Well, golly, james…once they’re ** dead **, yeah!
If one of my loved ones died and had specifically asked that their body NOT be used for medical research, I would probably honor that request. But I don’t know a SINGLE person in my entire circle of friends and family who would care enough to say that. Not ONE. Once you are dead, even if there is life after death your **body ** is no longer involved. Your body is merely tissue that will rot in the ground or be burned to ash. If it can serve others instead, isnt’ that better? Something tells me you’d warm up to the idea if you needed a heart transplant.
HUH? What? When? Where? How? Is there a SINGLE thing he has actually DONE that is in any way pandering to the left? He’s got (bad) rhetoric to spare, but his actions are screaming at top volume. Please, give me some shred of hope that he isn’t on a mission to bring the right-wing agenda to us all as fast as he possibly can!
Not out of their gourd, Drpepper, just wrong. 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. I am not one of these namby-pamby debaters who feels the need to see everybody’s view equally. If I felt that everyone’s view was equal, why would I be debating it? I debate, and I debate strongly, when I believe I am right. Don’t take it as a personal affront – I certainly don’t take it personally if others believe they are right and I am wrong.
And I think that you made and destroyed your own argument all in one post.
First you say that the position of the anti-fetal-tissue folks are not all about political gain. Then you go on to basically say that the purpose of being against it…is for political gain!
To stand against it as a means of throwing the horror of abortion into relief is to stand against it for political gain.
To stand against it because you don’t want a positive associated with something so negative is to stand against it for political gain.
To stand against it because you think it would help reduce the number of abortions is to stand against it for political gain.
You then apply * your * political gain reasoning to those of us who DO support it as a way of justifying your attitude when you say that we who support it do so specifically because it is a way of mitigating the negative. You are wrong. We, I, support it because fetal tissue research could result in * cures for deadly and painful diseases *. I don’t give a rats ass one way or another how it makes anyone feel about the issue of abortion. I’m annoyed that they are being linked together at all. For me it is about advancing medical science. Period. Exclusively. No politics involved.
Well, Stoid, that’s generally the way a good debate works-one acknowledges the other viewpoints, then comes up with arguments to refute them. Occassionally, you may have to give someone else a point.
Also, remember-someone else believes that THEY are right, and therefore, they believe in their hearts, that abortion is wrong. THAT does not make anyone stupid, or an idiot.
And I NEVER said that it does. NEVER. Not only have I never said it, I don’t believe it is so.
But not simply because people believe in their hearts that they are right. Just because a person believes a thing passionately, that does not mean that they are not stupid, or that the belief is not stupid. Someone could believe passionately in their hearts that the moon is made of CheezWhiz. That is a stupid belief, and I would feel free to consider such a person an idiot.
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 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.
