Can some pro-lifer explain this idiocy to me, please?

[PunditLisa]

Well, although this has little to do with the topic at hand, I was very much in support of the “partial birth abortion” bill that would have been signed into law with a “health of the mother” clause added to it. In fact, I would support any legislation to ban abortion after the 5th, and PERHAPS the 4th month, IF there were a loophole that allowed it to save the mother’s health.

On this I am absolutely in agreement with you.

Lisa, fainting dead.

P.S. I also think RU 487 is a much better alternative than, say, suctioning out a 3-month old fetus.

[Guinastasia]

See, I’m pro-choice, but anti-abortion. I hate it, but realize that it’s not a good idea to ban it, and that everyone should make that choice for herself.

As far as partial birth abortion, how common is it, really?
I HIGHLY doubt, (at least I HOPE no one is this stupid), that a woman in her 8th month suddenly wakes up one day and says, “Gee, I just decided I don’t want to have this kid anymore…even though I’m three weeks away from delivery, I’m gonna have an abortion! Yippee!”

I mean, I think the whole issue on abortions would be so much better if we had better sex ed in this country.

On fetal research, I’m mixed. I want to say that yes, something good may come out of it…but on the other hand…I’m uneasy. I can’t help it.

BTW, what is the abortion rate of other countries?

[sebo]

This may not be answering the original question but does stem cell research really need aborted babies?

I thought stem cells may also be “harvested” (lack of a better term) from the placenta after birth. Or maybe directly from a developing fetus without interfering with the gestation process.

Please correct me if I am wrong. But if I am right, the moral question of using stem cells from aborted babies should not be an issue at all. We have plenty of pregnancies and births to supply the demand for stem cells.

I am pro-choice, by the way, but I don’t think that should have any bearing to the argument.

[quixotic78]

*Originally posted by Flymaster *
**THEN REDUCE ABORTION FOR PROFIT!!! Make it illegal to PAY for aborted fetuses and fetus parts. Enforce existing laws. Do something about this problem. Don’t kill funding to make SOME good out of what you consider a bad situation.
**

Look, if there’s profit to be had, then profit will be had. Like someone said earlier… suppose tomorrow, an unprecedented breakthrough were made in stem cell research, and a preliminary but very promising cure for cancer were found. You still (and Stoid too) think that profit would not be a motive? I agree, let’s enforce the laws. But I’m not sure that’s enough.

And like another poster said earlier (again, forgot who)–I don’t want there to be good in abortion. I want it to stand out in all its unimitigated shittiness. I don’t want a woman to say, “Well, I have to get an abortion, and it sucks–but at least my dead fetus will be going to help science.” Nope, I’ll pass on that silver lining. Call me anti-life (smirks at Stoid), but I’m just too afraid of that slippery slope (finding good in downright terrible things).

**GET RID OF THE DEAD BODIES!!! Pass a Constitutional amendment that would overturn Roe v. Wade. What’s that, you say? It wouldn’t pass because not enough people would support it? Hmm…odd.

**
Well, yeah, I’m sure that’s GW’s ultimate goal, overturning Roe v. Wade. Heaven forfend he try to take baby steps instead of SWOOSHING down and getting utterly defeated as you (rightfully) prognosticate. I saw a link posted the other day showing some statistics on abortion attitudes. While a majority (around 60%?) generally consider themselves “pro-choice,” a majority (over 60%) feel that abortion should not be used as birth control. Perhaps this will be his next “baby step,” making it more difficult to use abortion as birth control. Sorry, that was kind of an unrelated tangent

**So you’re saying that IF fetuses are aborted, they should be thrown out and burned. Because you have NOT adressed the issue of “allowing the same privilege of life that” I enjoy. NOTHING to this end has been accomplished with this order, at all. You’re adressing the wrong issue entirely. All this order does is cause more babies to be tossed in the garbage. That’s ALL.

**
You’re still going under the premise that the fetuses will be aborted, and are giving that premise authority under the “But abortion is legal!” claptrap. You say that I’m addressing the wrong issue; I feel that they’re intimately linked.

**THEN MAKE IT ILLEGAL!!! As I’ve said, this order would do NOTHING to reduce the number of abortions, all it would do is increse the number of children bounced off the proverbial backboard on the trashbarel of medical waste. That’s it. Not a single life saved. Just more potential research material wasted.

**
[Reiteration]Small steps… small steps… [/reiteration]

**Well, while campaigning to end FGM, if I were to come across a father who was going to perform the surgery on his daughter with a rusty razor blade, I would certainly do everything in my power to talk him out of it, save the girl, etc. But failing that, I most certainly WOULD provide the girl with adequate medical care to be sure that she recovered as well as possible. I wouldn’t say, well, I failed, so let’s let her suffer because I couldn’t have my way.

**
Ok, extend this analogy to GW. He’s not in a position where he can personally confront Sally Q. Abortion. How’s he supposed to “do everything in his power” to prevent the abortion from happening? Write a fucking book espousing his views and hope that Sally reads it? Feh. “Everything in his power” includes executive orders.
**

Well, I don’t agree that it’s A Bad Thing. I consider it to be a rather Neutral Thing. I don’t encourage it, but I’m not particularly outraged by it either.**

Well as PunditLisa noted, at least you’re honest. You’re also, I’d wager, in the severe minority. It doesn’t invalidate your opinion any, but it does cast doubt on extrapolating your opinion to the U.S. as a whole. No comment on how my own views reflect on the U.S. as a whole
**

As for your question raised here, simple. If I went to a casino, and lost $1000 in a night of gambling, I would probably be offered a free room or meal by the hotel. I wouldn’t be happy about losing the money, and the room is certainly worth much less than the $1000 that I’d lost. But, would I accept it? Sure. It’s better than nothing. And rather than banning the system of hotel comps, I’d instead campaign to end legalized gambling. **

Ok, suppose I’m the one campaigning to end legalized gambling. You’re saying, “Don’t ban free rooms, just attack gambling altogether.” That’s a pretty ballsy tactic. I’d be a little more conservative… start with banning the free rooms. Then maybe get rid of the alcohol. Naked girls next? I’d think that by chopping away at gambling rather than going straight for the jugular, my chances would be better.

Originally posted by Stoid
Flymaster, thank heaven you’re here! I don’t have the time to do this alone, particularly with folks like quixotic showing up. Excellent job!

Yeah, my one post before this one was certainly a handful for you and your almost 2000 posts :rolleyes: .
**

By this reasoning, I’d like the Navy to stop doing the work it is doing in the oceans right now that is screwing up the hearing of killer whales throughout the world and in all likelihood causing their deaths. I don’t want to pay for it, and frankly, I think killing whales is evil and my feelings should be honored.**

No, I don’t think your “feelings should be honored.” But if you were to occupy a position of power… well, that’s what democracy is. Politicians get elected to (supposedly) represent the views of the majority while still protecting the rights of the minority. You want to stop Naval drilling? Campaign.

One person recently asked about using other sources for stem cell research. JubilationTCornpone already gave the following link: http://www.str.org/free/bioethics/stemcell.pdf

Quix

[drachillix]

Fact of life people, bottom line on most medical research IS profit.

If I own Drachillix Medical Labs doing research on aborted tissues and develop lets say a cure for cancer via my research. I am going to patent my magic cure and some phamaceuticals manufacturer is going to pay alot of money for the privelege of making this miracle drug, hospitals and doctors will dispense this drug (for a profit as well), and hopefully everyone will live a better life through chemistry.

I am not familiar with what types of profit restrictions or profitsharing are imposed if any on research that is government funded.

Trying to say that the medical world may not profit from their work is futile. Medicine is about money, hospitals and clinics are businesses, thinking otherwise for even a second is rather naive.

[Dignan]

I wonder how Dumbya would feel about the issue if he couldn’t. Or if someone else in his family couldn’t. If someone in his family was paralyzed, or his Dad was the one with Alzheimer’s I bet he’d start re-thinking his position pretty damn fast (if he could grasp what exactly was going on).

A question to the anti-fetal-tissue-research people:

Please explain your position. Do you really think that a woman would decide to have an abortion simply because it might help some researcher that she’s never met?

My answer: Give me a break.

Another Question: What about a fetus that is mis-carried? If it is OK with the mother to give the cells to research then is that wrong?

[Flymaster]

*Originally posted by quixotic78 *
Look, if there’s profit to be had, then profit will be had. Like someone said earlier… suppose tomorrow, an unprecedented breakthrough were made in stem cell research, and a preliminary but very promising cure for cancer were found. You still (and Stoid too) think that profit would not be a motive? I agree, let’s enforce the laws. But I’m not sure that’s enough.

Well, if a law can’t stop payment for mothers in exchange for fetuses, then why do you think a law would stop abortion in general? All government can do is make a law and enforce it. If it’s ignored, well, the government can only try to enforce it harder.

And like another poster said earlier (again, forgot who)–I don’t want there to be good in abortion. I want it to stand out in all its unimitigated shittiness. I don’t want a woman to say, “Well, I have to get an abortion, and it sucks–but at least my dead fetus will be going to help science.” Nope, I’ll pass on that silver lining. Call me anti-life (smirks at Stoid), but I’m just too afraid of that slippery slope (finding good in downright terrible things).

So you support ignoring the potential of science in order to advance your political viewpoint. What if it was discovered tomorrow that something in fetuses could cure cancer, AIDS, heart disease, and the ebola virus? Would you still be against using this advance, even if the supply of fetuses that are aborted today were more than enough to supply the need, so that there would be no reason that the demand for abortions would increase?

Well, yeah, I’m sure that’s GW’s ultimate goal, overturning Roe v. Wade. Heaven forfend he try to take baby steps instead of SWOOSHING down and getting utterly defeated as you (rightfully) prognosticate. I saw a link posted the other day showing some statistics on abortion attitudes. While a majority (around 60%?) generally consider themselves “pro-choice,” a majority (over 60%) feel that abortion should not be used as birth control. Perhaps this will be his next “baby step,” making it more difficult to use abortion as birth control. Sorry, that was kind of an unrelated tangent

But this isn’t a baby step towards eliminating abortion. It does nothing in regards to reducing the number of abortions, making them less accessible, or less desirable as “birth control.”

You’re still going under the premise that the fetuses will be aborted, and are giving that premise authority under the “But abortion is legal!” claptrap. You say that I’m addressing the wrong issue; I feel that they’re intimately linked.

Fetuses WILL be aborted until it’s illegal. This measure does nothing to stop it, and abortion is just as legal as ever. I keep stressing that abortion is legal because it IS. And as I’ve continually repeated, this measure does nothing, not even a baby step, to change that fact. At all.

Ok, extend this analogy to GW. He’s not in a position where he can personally confront Sally Q. Abortion. How’s he supposed to “do everything in his power” to prevent the abortion from happening? Write a fucking book espousing his views and hope that Sally reads it? Feh. “Everything in his power” includes executive orders.

But this order doesn’t talk Sally Q. Abortion out of it. It doesn’t affect her at all. It just means that instead of being put to use to save others, her “baby” will be tossed in an incinerator down at the hospital.

Ok, suppose I’m the one campaigning to end legalized gambling. You’re saying, “Don’t ban free rooms, just attack gambling altogether.” That’s a pretty ballsy tactic. I’d be a little more conservative… start with banning the free rooms. Then maybe get rid of the alcohol. Naked girls next? I’d think that by chopping away at gambling rather than going straight for the jugular, my chances would be better.

But the alcohol has nothing to do with me losing my money. Nor does the free room. They’re completely unrelated. People gamble to gamble. The free room is just a bonus. The booze is just a bonus.

[Edlyn]

Having read all the posts which included some interesting points, I’d like to bring a few questions and one comment forward.

Is the mother asked for her permission to use her fetus for research following the abortion procedure?

Is the mother paid for this or does the clinic collect money from both the “mother” and the research facility?

Two posters brought forward that stem cell gathering can be easily done following the birth of a child. The stem cells are harvested from otherwise discarded umbilical cords. (Not the placenta.) Why hasn’t any pro-choice poster responded to this fact? If the stem cells are really what their after, fetal tissue isn’t needed at all.

For those who are whining about federal funding being cut for this type of research, I’d like to point out that, actually, there isn’t any constitutional basis granted for appropriations to be made by the federal government in the first place! If you can find it within the enumeration of Article 1, Section 8, let me know.

[Flymaster]

*Originally posted by Edlyn *
**Is the mother asked for her permission to use her fetus for research following the abortion procedure?

Is the mother paid for this or does the clinic collect money from both the “mother” and the research facility?**

I don’t know about either of these. But I would certainly be in favor of requiring consent. As I have stated in my posts above, I think that banning any profit of the type described in the second question is exactly what Bush should have addressed, if it’s not already illegal.

Two posters brought forward that stem cell gathering can be easily done following the birth of a child. The stem cells are harvested from otherwise discarded umbilical cords. (Not the placenta.) Why hasn’t any pro-choice poster responded to this fact? If the stem cells are really what their after, fetal tissue isn’t needed at all.

IANA stem cell researcher, but I recall hearing that stem cells from other sources, while a possible source, are not as promising a source for research, as the genetic age is different. Someone, I’m sure, will correct me or confirm this. Either way, I feel that fetal research should still be allowed, as the fetuses are already dead, and if the mother wants to donate it for research, this should be taken advantage of, as it can only increase the chance that a cure for these diseases could be found.

**For those who are whining about federal funding being cut for this type of research, I’d like to point out that, actually, there isn’t any constitutional basis granted for appropriations to be made by the federal government in the first place! If you can find it within the enumeration of Article 1, Section 8, let me know.

**

And I’ve never seen “executive order” in the Constitution, either. If I’ve missed it (and I mean this honestly, not sarcastically, because I know that I very well could have missed it), please tell me where to find it.

[dewt]

*Originally posted by Edlyn *
**Is the mother asked for her permission to use her fetus for research following the abortion procedure?
**

Yes. In the form of fine print on the release.

**

Is the mother paid for this or does the clinic collect money from both the “mother” and the research facility?
**

The mother is not paid for this. Neither is the father. That would be very very sick.

[rjung]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by beagledave *

*Originally posted by rjung *
As with all abortion-related debates, the bottom line goes down to the question, “Is a fetus alive?” And since there’s no definitive answer to the question, it becomes a matter of personal interpretation.

MR2001 wrote somewhere else:
"No one disagrees that an embryo is alive and human."

Well, considering that (a) MR2001 didn’t back up his assertion with any sort of evidence, (b) AFAIK there remains a lot of unresolved debate among scientists, theologians, and philosophers of whether or not an embro is a living human or not, and © there remains no universally-accepted definition of what being “human” is, I’ll have to conclude that MR2001’s assertion is groundless and unsupported.

I’ll agree with MR2001 that the embryo is alive in the same cellular sense that a bacteria is, but he didn’t convince me about the “human” part. And the last time I looked, the only person who was campaigning for protecting bacteria from wanton slaughter was Binkley from Bloom County.

Personal interpretation, kids.

[quixotic78]

*Originally posted by Flymaster *
Well, if a law can’t stop payment for mothers in exchange for fetuses, then why do you think a law would stop abortion in general? All government can do is make a law and enforce it. If it’s ignored, well, the government can only try to enforce it harder.

I’m not so naive to think that a law is going to stop abortion entirely. I do think making abortions illegal will severely diminish the number of abortions performed. That’s the goal of pro-lifers, isn’t it? Again, obviously enforcement is a good thing. I don’t recall anyone debating this…
**

So you support ignoring the potential of science in order to advance your political viewpoint. What if it was discovered tomorrow that something in fetuses could cure cancer, AIDS, heart disease, and the ebola virus?**

I support stopping the advancement of science if that advancement requires doing something that is morally bankrupt. If I found out that by killing a 2 month old baby on a Tuesday, I would be cured of all my ills, I wouldn’t do it. Would you? Suppose I added the twist that the 2 month old had to have a disease that invariably ended life somewhere around age 15. Would you then kill this baby?

Would you still be against using this advance, even if the supply of fetuses that are aborted today were more than enough to supply the need, so that there would be no reason that the demand for abortions would increase?

I think your scenario of “helpful dead fetuses” (HDFs) supports my side more than it does yours. If a dead fetus could do all of this, you don’t think demand for HDF’s would grow? Eventually, someone will have the bright idea of conceiving for the express purpose of aborting the fetus to reap the rewards. By the way, this has already happened. From the link posted earlier:

ABC News ran a story four years ago about a woman whose father was suffering from Parkinson’s Disease. Having heard that brain cells from aborted babies could be used to treat the disease, she sought to conceive a child for the express purpose of aborting it four months later so its body parts could be used to treat her father.

Certainly, this falls outside the realm of HDFs that are just gonna be incinerated anyways. This situation will only be exacerbated immensely as stem cell research progresses (this report was 4 years ago, remember).

**But this [stopping stem cell research] isn’t a baby step towards eliminating abortion. It does nothing in regards to reducing the number of abortions, making them less accessible, or less desirable as “birth control.”

**
Maybe you’re right (I mean that sincerely). I admit that it’s entirely possible that GW is merely pandering to the anti-abortion faction. But it’s also possible that GW is nipping this thing in bud. He wants to stop stem cell research before a demand for HDFs is created. shrug Just a thought.
**

Fetuses WILL be aborted until it’s illegal. This measure does nothing to stop it, and abortion is just as legal as ever. I keep stressing that abortion is legal because it IS. And as I’ve continually repeated, this measure does nothing, not even a baby step, to change that fact. At all.**

I don’t know, I still see it as a baby step. GW has scored against abortion, even in this minor way. And the public has, from what I’ve gathered, reacted with indifference, largely called by ignorance.
**

But the alcohol has nothing to do with me losing my money. Nor does the free room. They’re completely unrelated. People gamble to gamble. The free room is just a bonus. The booze is just a bonus.**

I don’t know about that… I’ve gambled just for the free booze before. Whatever, it’s a tangent.
**

IANA stem cell researcher, but I recall hearing that stem cells from other sources, while a possible source, are not as promising a source for research, as the genetic age is different. Someone, I’m sure, will correct me or confirm this.**

This is from the link I re-posted earlier in this thread:

Startling new evidence indicates that adult stem cells are not only effective alternatives to destructive embryo research, but are better at battling disease.

There are more specifics in the link, detailing both the pratfalls of fetal stem cells and the successes of adult stem cells. IANA Stem cell researcher, either, so I can’t common on the validity of the studies done, but the link contains references, if you’re curious or dubious.

Flymaster, I suggest that you peruse the link. It’s admittedly biased (it’s written by someone who “teaches pro-life apologetics at both the graduate and undergraduate levels”). However, he does link to outside research. It’s possible that he lied, but that would seem to be easily validated by clicking on a link. Moreover, some of the questions he raises are valid regardless of his bias.

Quix

[JubilationTCornpone]

*Originally posted by sebo *
**This may not be answering the original question but does stem cell research really need aborted babies? **

They don’t. There are other perfectly fine sources for stem cells.

I cited a link to this information earlier, and quixotic78 reposted it shortly after your post. Just thought I’d mention this, just in case you didn’t notice that info amidst the other discussions.