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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dammit, Flymaster! You keep beatin’ me to the punch!
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.
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.
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.
Well, yes, because mom murdered him. Otherwise, these children would also be alive to roam wild and free.
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?
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?
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:
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?
I just did. See above.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Isn’t this a little like saying graverobbing will reduce the incidence of murder?
She further sez:
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.