You've got what you asked for

[Zoom-boing]

Even in spite of the good in vitro can do for couples unable to have a child naturally? You would have those couples go childless just to save "the leftovers"?

Yes. They can adopt.

So much for the family bloodline. And how easy is it to adopt a child today?

So because it's hard to adopt, don't bother? How easy is going through in vitro?

I've always thought that if a couple is unable to have a child on their own there was a reason for it and that reason was so they would adopt a child already born. If they go the in vitro route the already born child gets the shaft. I'm probably in the vast minority on this. And there is that pesky 'what to do with the leftovers'. If you see them as blobs in a petri dish then there isn't anything to think about, just toss them. If you see them as human beings, quite a different scenario.

 

[Samson]

I wonder if there is the same outrage over in vitro clinics when they clean out the freezer, so to speak. Where are the protesters, the PACs, the homilies from the pulpit?

And are you prepared to grow government? Would you approve of a federal law mandating the indefinite storage of human embryos? Would you support regular federal inspections of records and storage facilities and their inventory?

I'm not sure I can follow your logic, but I'll try:

You believe the Judiciary has interpreted laws, and that some group has protested these interpretations because they contradict their own interpretation.

Now, you believe the Judiciary has interpreted a law, and the SAME group should protest this interpretation because it AGREES WITH their own interpretation?

Why would you expect the latter?

Instead, Why wouldn't pro abortionists (or those that are pro-stem cell reseach) simply propose a consitutional amendment defining the legal use of human embryos?

 

[del]

Alright. I suppose the judge did not act as the dreaded activist jurist and the law, as written, does not provide for a legal means to conduct vital research. Thanks, Conservatives for that next road block to discovery.


But, Conservatives actively protest abortion clinics because they claim all life is sacred. Well, what about all those discarded embryos? Aren't those frozen embryos just as sacred as the embryo aborted by a frightened, confused unwed teenager?

Is it just easier or more fun to hassle that little girl rather than impede a for-profit clinic from making their margin of profit? Where is the outrage when it's cleaning day at the in vitro clinic?

Once again, you don't like the law? Change it. You have had 4 years to do so.

M ore like twenty months. Get that law out of committee and onto the house floor? Right after it was so easy to pass health care reform.

psssst. it's a function of the legislative branch to make law, not the executive. the democrats have been running the most ethical, transparent, bestest congress evah since jan, 2007.

 

[Samson]

Yes. They can adopt.

So much for the family bloodline. And how easy is it to adopt a child today?

So because it's hard to adopt, don't bother? How easy is going through in vitro?

I've always thought that if a couple is unable to have a child on their own there was a reason for it and that reason was so they would adopt a child already born. If they go the in vitro route the already born child gets the shaft. I'm probably in the vast minority on this. And there is that pesky 'what to do with the leftovers'. If you see them as blobs in a petri dish then there isn't anything to think about, just toss them. If you see them as human beings, quite a different scenario.

The couple with "Leftovers" should be required to keep them in their own freezer, whereupon they shall be available for random inspection by a local church for no less than 18 years.

 

[Avatar4321]

Even in spite of the good in vitro can do for couples unable to have a child naturally? You would have those couples go childless just to save "the leftovers"?

Yes. They can adopt.

So much for the family bloodline. And how easy is it to adopt a child today?

Make it easier to adopt.

Not exactly rocket science.

 

[Nosmo King]

I wonder if there is the same outrage over in vitro clinics when they clean out the freezer, so to speak. Where are the protesters, the PACs, the homilies from the pulpit?

And are you prepared to grow government? Would you approve of a federal law mandating the indefinite storage of human embryos? Would you support regular federal inspections of records and storage facilities and their inventory?

I'm not sure I can follow your logic, but I'll try:

You believe the Judiciary has interpreted laws, and that some group has protested these interpretations because they contradict their own interpretation.

Now, you believe the Judiciary has interpreted a law, and the SAME group should protest this interpretation because it AGREES WITH their own interpretation?

Why would you expect the latter?

Instead, Why wouldn't pro abortionists (or those that are pro-stem cell reseach) simply propose a consitutional amendment defining the legal use of human embryos?

My point is if Conservatives believe there should not be any scientific advances by way of embryonic stem cell due to their belief even that is sacred "human" life, why haven't those same righteous Conservatives been actively working to shut down in vitro clinics? Especially when those clinics must purge their storage from time to time?

Is it because abortion itself is egregious to the Conservatives while in vitro fertilization clinics are going concerns?

I find it odd that anti-abortion protesters are fine with hassling a confused young unwed mother, but sit on their hands while for-profit clinics destroy embryos on a regular basis. I find it odd that Conservatives would present a road block to science and the hope for cures to devastating diseases because that research destroys embryos, while the waste of embryos occurs without so much as a glance from the right wingers.

 

[Nosmo King]

Yes. They can adopt.

So much for the family bloodline. And how easy is it to adopt a child today?

Make it easier to adopt.

Not exactly rocket science.

So, married gay couples should be eligible to adopt?

 

[Nosmo King]

Once again, you don't like the law? Change it. You have had 4 years to do so.

M ore like twenty months. Get that law out of committee and onto the house floor? Right after it was so easy to pass health care reform.

psssst. it's a function of the legislative branch to make law, not the executive. the democrats have been running the most ethical, transparent, bestest congress evah since jan, 2007.

Suppose a bill allowing the destruction of embryos for research got to Bush's desk. Suppose he'd have signed it?


Ooo! Snap! Bills have to be signed by the president to become law!

 

[Avatar4321]

My point is if Conservatives believe there should not be any scientific advances by way of embryonic stem cell due to their belief even that is sacred "human" life, why haven't those same righteous Conservatives been actively working to shut down in vitro clinics? Especially when those clinics must purge their storage from time to time?

Is it because abortion itself is egregious to the Conservatives while in vitro fertilization clinics are going concerns?

I find it odd that anti-abortion protesters are fine with hassling a confused young unwed mother, but sit on their hands while for-profit clinics destroy embryos on a regular basis. I find it odd that Conservatives would present a road block to science and the hope for cures to devastating diseases because that research destroys embryos, while the waste of embryos occurs without so much as a glance from the right wingers.

Do you understand the difference between the Federal Government funding and private funding at all?

 

[Avatar4321]

So much for the family bloodline. And how easy is it to adopt a child today?

Make it easier to adopt.

Not exactly rocket science.

So, married gay couples should be eligible to adopt?

Married gay couples is an oxymoron.

 

[del]

M ore like twenty months. Get that law out of committee and onto the house floor? Right after it was so easy to pass health care reform.

psssst. it's a function of the legislative branch to make law, not the executive. the democrats have been running the most ethical, transparent, bestest congress evah since jan, 2007.

Suppose a bill allowing the destruction of embryos for research got to Bush's desk. Suppose he'd have signed it?


Ooo! Snap! Bills have to be signed by the president to become law!

nice try, fuckchop, but obviously the dimwits in congress didn't bother to even write a bill, let alone pass it, let alone send it to bush's desk for him to veto, and obama's peeps didn't have the brains to check the current law.



i will give you points for the most creative way of whining *it's booooooooooosh's fault* that i've heard in at least 20 minutes.

 

[Nosmo King]

Make it easier to adopt.

Not exactly rocket science.

So, married gay couples should be eligible to adopt?

Married gay couples is an oxymoron.

Not for long!

 

[Nosmo King]

psssst. it's a function of the legislative branch to make law, not the executive. the democrats have been running the most ethical, transparent, bestest congress evah since jan, 2007.

Suppose a bill allowing the destruction of embryos for research got to Bush's desk. Suppose he'd have signed it?


Ooo! Snap! Bills have to be signed by the president to become law!

nice try, fuckchop, but obviously the dimwits in congress didn't bother to even write a bill, let alone pass it, let alone send it to bush's desk for him to veto, and obama's peeps didn't have the brains to check the current law.



i will give you points for the most creative way of whining *it's booooooooooosh's fault* that i've heard in at least 20 minutes.

Not nearly as creative as that coked-up frat boys actual pronouncement that NO federal funding should go to embryonic stem cell research! Perhaps, in many ways, it is Bush's fault once again.

 

[del]

Suppose a bill allowing the destruction of embryos for research got to Bush's desk. Suppose he'd have signed it?


Ooo! Snap! Bills have to be signed by the president to become law!

nice try, fuckchop, but obviously the dimwits in congress didn't bother to even write a bill, let alone pass it, let alone send it to bush's desk for him to veto, and obama's peeps didn't have the brains to check the current law.



i will give you points for the most creative way of whining *it's booooooooooosh's fault* that i've heard in at least 20 minutes.

Not nearly as creative as that coked-up frat boys actual pronouncement that NO federal funding should go to embryonic stem cell research! Perhaps, in many ways, it is Bush's fault once again.

perhaps, just for the **** of it, you should try living in the present.

bush isn't president any more, corky, obama is, and he's even worse at it than bush was, which is almost impossible to believe.

if he felt so strongly about embryonic stem cell research, he should have had his staff make sure that all the tees were crossed and eyes dotted. he didn't and the court ruled to uphold existing law. tough shit.

you really need to work on your deflecting skills, BTW, you suck at it.

 

[midcan5]

A great many conceptions end naturally so the idea this is a person is no more realistic than a sperm is half a person and the egg half. Why kill these half people? How many here waste sperm and eggs, I wonder, hm, all. Only the orthodox, my parents for instance, lived a life of life. And you can guess how many brothers and sisters I have. LOL

When the moral hypocrites line up to take these in vitro cells and then to raise them with wife or girlfriend, I will take them seriously. Abortion is a wonderful topic for the wingnuts as it requires nothing of them except moral holier than thou attitudes. They love to feel holy, it is the action they don't like.



"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time."
HISTORY OF ABORTION

Boston Review — Judith Jarvis Thomson

Top 10 Anti-Abortion Myths - Top 10 Myths About Abortion

Why Francis Beckwiths Case Against Abortion Fails


"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

 

[Samson]

I wonder if there is the same outrage over in vitro clinics when they clean out the freezer, so to speak. Where are the protesters, the PACs, the homilies from the pulpit?

And are you prepared to grow government? Would you approve of a federal law mandating the indefinite storage of human embryos? Would you support regular federal inspections of records and storage facilities and their inventory?

I'm not sure I can follow your logic, but I'll try:

You believe the Judiciary has interpreted laws, and that some group has protested these interpretations because they contradict their own interpretation.

Now, you believe the Judiciary has interpreted a law, and the SAME group should protest this interpretation because it AGREES WITH their own interpretation?

Why would you expect the latter?

Instead, Why wouldn't pro abortionists (or those that are pro-stem cell reseach) simply propose a consitutional amendment defining the legal use of human embryos?

My point is if Conservatives believe there should not be any scientific advances by way of embryonic stem cell due to their belief even that is sacred "human" life, why haven't those same righteous Conservatives been actively working to shut down in vitro clinics? Especially when those clinics must purge their storage from time to time?

Is it because abortion itself is egregious to the Conservatives while in vitro fertilization clinics are going concerns?

I find it odd that anti-abortion protesters are fine with hassling a confused young unwed mother, but sit on their hands while for-profit clinics destroy embryos on a regular basis. I find it odd that Conservatives would present a road block to science and the hope for cures to devastating diseases because that research destroys embryos, while the waste of embryos occurs without so much as a glance from the right wingers.

I'm not entirely convinced that

1. Conservatives believe there should not be any scientific advances by way of embryonic stem cell.

2. Conservatives have not been actively working to shut down in vitro clinics.

How do you know so much about what "Conservatives" believe or don't believe, or whatever? Maybe you find all this "odd" because you have an ill defined concept of reality?

I certainly haven't any problem with stem cell research, destroying embryos, or whatever.

How many Americans really have a problem with it?

Do you have anything to support your POV?

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm not sure I can follow your logic, but I'll try:

You believe the Judiciary has interpreted laws, and that some group has protested these interpretations because they contradict their own interpretation.

Now, you believe the Judiciary has interpreted a law, and the SAME group should protest this interpretation because it AGREES WITH their own interpretation?

Why would you expect the latter?

Instead, Why wouldn't pro abortionists (or those that are pro-stem cell reseach) simply propose a consitutional amendment defining the legal use of human embryos?

My point is if Conservatives believe there should not be any scientific advances by way of embryonic stem cell due to their belief even that is sacred "human" life, why haven't those same righteous Conservatives been actively working to shut down in vitro clinics? Especially when those clinics must purge their storage from time to time?

Is it because abortion itself is egregious to the Conservatives while in vitro fertilization clinics are going concerns?

I find it odd that anti-abortion protesters are fine with hassling a confused young unwed mother, but sit on their hands while for-profit clinics destroy embryos on a regular basis. I find it odd that Conservatives would present a road block to science and the hope for cures to devastating diseases because that research destroys embryos, while the waste of embryos occurs without so much as a glance from the right wingers.

I'm not entirely convinced that

1. Conservatives believe there should not be any scientific advances by way of embryonic stem cell.

2. Conservatives have not been actively working to shut down in vitro clinics.

How do you know so much about what "Conservatives" believe or don't believe, or whatever? Maybe you find all this "odd" because you have an ill defined concept of reality?

I certainly haven't any problem with stem cell research, destroying embryos, or whatever.

How many Americans really have a problem with it?

Do you have anything to support your POV?

I just Googled "opposition to embryonic stem cell research" and I'll be damned if I could find any Liberal opinions voicing opposition. I found articles in "Capitalism magazine", the Roman Catholic church (unless there is a shadow Liberal Roman Catholic church) and on and on.

Nope! Seems the opposition comes from Conservative groups. Prove me wrong.

 

[Samson]

Abortion is a wonderful topic for the wingnuts as it requires nothing of them except moral holier than thou attitudes. They love to feel holy, it is the action they don't like.

By "wingnut" I'd assume you'd mean BOTH wings: A Constitutional amendment would settle the matter, one way or another. Neither pro or anti-abortionists appear ready to fight as hard for their convictions as say, prohibitionists.

But then, really, what is human life compared with the right to consume Pabst Blue Ribbon?

 

[Avatar4321]

Not nearly as creative as that coked-up frat boys actual pronouncement that NO federal funding should go to embryonic stem cell research! Perhaps, in many ways, it is Bush's fault once again.

Could you point out the clause in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to fund embryonic stem cell research?

Can you name the statute preventing any of the States or from Private investors from doing it?

Can you stop lying and pretending that Federal Funds are the only way to do research?

 

[Nosmo King]

Not nearly as creative as that coked-up frat boys actual pronouncement that NO federal funding should go to embryonic stem cell research! Perhaps, in many ways, it is Bush's fault once again.

Could you point out the clause in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to fund embryonic stem cell research?

Can you name the statute preventing any of the States or from Private investors from doing it?

Can you stop lying and pretending that Federal Funds are the only way to do research?

Federal funding isn't the only way to conduct embryonic stem cell research. But it is the most expedient way to have research funded. Consider the results of federal money on technology. From the electrification of the west and rural south to the development of atomic energy right through the space program, federal funding led the way and produced beneficial results.

Where's the privately funded space program?