Yeah, just wasn’t in the mood to parse the difference when I was writing that out at 2AM.
“Forget it, Jake k9, it’s MAGAtown.”
Only Thomas’s (concurring) opinion would beg the question that scotus should overturn Loving. The Alito majority opinion was that the 14th amendment due process clause only protects rights with a historical basis, which is such a vague standard that the court could use it to work backward and protect or deny basically whatever right they want.
Why don’t you provide a fucking cite instead of deflecting. Here, let me lay out how this could have happened:
Aspirin is invented. Time passes. Later in time, that is, after aspirin is invented, the future from the point of view of those who invented aspirin, testing may have been done using fetal cells.
There was time travel involved, of course, in the same sense that we’re all time travelers, moving forward at a rate of one second per second.
You said it was debunked – go ahead and debunk it, rather than telling us when some medicines were invented.
ETA: Hmm, I wonder how this testing was done:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep44184
A series of studies undertaken in utero in the rat and ex vivo in rat and human fetal testes…
No it isn’t. Drug research, even on old drugs, doesn’t stop. I have no idea why you would think that. “Debunked” by someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Sheesh.
I did a quick pubmed search using just acetaminophen and HEK 293 cells.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=acetaminophen+Hek+293+cell+line
Cell lines like HEK 293 cells are used in pretty much every lab doing research in tissue culture. Why? Because they’re more ‘normal’ than using a cancer-derived cell line.
Even though there are adult cells induced to be embryonic, you have to spend money to buy them. Plus, these induced cell lines may have some mutations that could screw up your research. It’s absurd that scientists have to throw away all their propagated embryonic stem cells lines because religious people think embryos are people.
If providing evidence that a drug was invented BEFORE the use of stem cells was a factor, then “cite” has no meaning.
I do not expect this response to change your minds, because you are clearly arguing in bad faith. If you were in any measure intellectually honest, you would not have responded the way that you did.
So, you think that a drug is invented, and then never tested again?
You do realize that you are the one who is in the wrong here, right? Or are you actually delusional enough to think that reality is on your side?
What is it with conservatives and projection?
Look, it’s OK to admit you were wrong. “I was right that the drugs were invented before stem cells were used, but I have to concede that, since then, aborted fetal tissue was used for further testing of these common drugs.”
I mean, we all knew that aspirin was invented before aborted fetal tissue was used for anything, so clearly, you were proving something that no one needed to be proven.
Yes, but that gives them wiggle room:
[MAGA] Tylenol, etc. were developed without using stem cells. Just because someone studied them later using stem cells isn’t our problem. Further proof that the FDA is evil and should be abolished [/MAGA]
Yes, there may be some wiggle room there.
It really depends on the details - are tablets OK from being developed without stem cells, but gelcaps verboten because the opposite? Or could it be that all versions of the product now off the table because they all use stem cells for periodic product testing? Hard to say.
But I think it’s safe to say that the vaccine refuseniks who claimed an exemption because of their religious beliefs were probably pretty surprised at the extent that fetal stem cell lines are used in modern pharmaceutical development and/or production. Heck, I was myself.
None of this information matters one damn bit, because the next time the topic comes up the same people who have been informed as to what the facts really are will present this argument as if this discussion never happened.
Guaranteed.
I’m willing to let them off the hook if they search Ebay and only use medication that was manufactured before 1998.
I just wish this particular poster would come back and acknowledge the error. So, @Bootb, how about it?
Also … wanna bet 99% of people claiming religious exemptions to the Covid vaccine have no clue about any of this? To them, “religious exemption” is just fancy talk for “I don’t wanna.”
I find myself more worried about decisions that are going to come. This session, I’m concerned about Section 230, and whether the anti-free-speech worms that have infected Republicans as of late when it comes to social media will lead to bad law. There is no way sites should be requires to publish any and all information submitted to them. What conservatives want Twitter, Facebook, etc. to be would completely remove moderation altogether.
The Thomas court has shown that they don’t care about precedent if their convictions are strong enough. So it’s also possible that stuff like the conservative idea of how bigotry works will become enshrined in law. This court doesn’t seem to require any proof that there has been some sort of substantial change that warrants revisiting the old precedent.
There’s also the use of “religious principles” as an excuse to support discrimination, something conservatives seem to think is okay. It’s literally on the ballot here in Arkansas, saying that even content neutral laws cannot violate freedom of religion–essentially making religion a way to run around having to follow duly passed laws that do not discriminate based on religion.
There’s the “independent state legislature theory,” the one that says that only the legislature decides a state’s electors for federal office, which would override the “one person, one vote” precedent. State judges would also not have any say, even if the legislature violates state law. This is a theory is pushed by a lot of Trumpists, as a way to allow states to overturn the will of their people.
I’m hoping that all the fear about the court seeming illegitimate will help to restrain them from ignoring precedent and what We the People want. If not, then here’s hoping the Dems get at least two more senators, as there’s only one way to fix that problem.
The WebMD article linked above says, “The hospital’s form includes a list of 30 common medications that used fetal cell lines during research and development.” (emphasis added).
This may come as a surprise to some of you know-it-alls, but “research and development” is the phase that comes before a product is put on the market. Once a product is being sold, it has already been developed. (Naturally enough.)
So the error is yours, not mine. But since you idiots are congenitally incapable of understanding basic logic, or the concept of cause and effect, I do not expect you to understand how the wording of the article blows your pet theory out of the water.
Must be nice to live in the alternate reality where the phrase ‘New and Improved!’ never appears on a familiar product.
It’s more a way to “stick it to the Libs with their own playbook”. Does that make sense? Of course not. Why would you think it would, coming from them?
And, of course, all research immediately stops, in your tiny mind.
Look, I provided a cite. Refute it or admit you’re wrong.
Well, that would provide a lot more porn for the good Justice, I suppose.