What an arrogant ass.
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”
--Barack Obama
That blue-eyed white baby, playing with blue butterflies sent down from Heaven was truly inspired.
John what's it like to not give a damn?
He probably feels liberated.
HA!
the question is, is he going to apologize to national right to life for calling them liars now that the truth is out?
i think not.
its not like he has to answer to the media.
what a broomstick.
That blue-eyed white baby, playing with blue butterflies sent down from Heaven was truly inspired.
How about the *real* issue here? Why is it okay to shelve born, alive babies to die? How is this "choice" and how the hell does this have anything to do with the "mother's body"?
I feel for the doctors who face this, some of them every day.
You should feel for the murdered children.
Yes, screw the actual grown humans, let's focus on the blastocysts.
How about their mothers, too?
For the record - most abortionists aren't touchy, feely kind of folk. In fact, I know of one detailed account of a family who miscarried and, while waiting for the induced birth of their stillborn child, were repeatedly asked by a doctor/abortionist if they were finished with "it" (i.e. their unborn child) yet because the abortionist was disturbed by their pain.
Any doctor who is troubled by abortion has a solution: DON'T DO THEM.
Read www.realchoice.blogspot.com. Then tell me you feel sorry for the quacks and butchers who perform abortions.
I don't.
I feel sorry for the women and children they maim and kill.
If you want to find stories of insensitive doctors, or patients who were unhappy with their experience in a hospital, you won't have to look far.
"Yes, screw the actual grown humans, let's focus on the blastocysts." - foust
You arrogant ass. Trying to compare ~100 cells to a baby born alive and left to die! You probably have more compassion for dog or cat than a human being, but I could be wrong and you could just be a sociopath.
If you want to find stories of insensitive doctors, or patients who were unhappy with their experience in a hospital, you won't have to look far.
But isn't the argument that legalized abortion does away with all that?
I think not. Less than 3% of abortions are done for medical reasons concerning the mother's health.
Which means 97% of abortions are unnecessary. Would you get a kidney transplant if you didn't need it?
No.
Abortion should never be used as a method of birth control, but it is. And that needs to stop. NOW.
What, you don't think a blastocyst is equivalent to a stillborn child? That they're both not equivalent to a fertilized yet un-implanted egg? You evil monster! You voted for infanticide, didn't you?
Amy, you mean both "Abortion needs to stop now" and "Birth control needs to stop now", right?
"blastocysts"
wow, fousty, you are so lear-ned. but used in that context, you could have easily said "mitochondria", broomstick.
so you're eqating the downs infant that the nurse held until it died to a blastocyst?
isnt that kind of decision making above your pay grade?
isnt breathing above your paygrade?
Who is it who says the fertilized egg is equivalent to the Downs infant, to the stillborn, to the stem cell? To the gangrenous limb? Who is it who says that doctors have no compassion, no understanding of what they're doing, of the tough calls they're volunteering to make? You think there's grey area here? Room for interpretation? Or is it absolutes, all the way down?
Exactly when is the "poof" that allows the organism to have protection? When it looks enough like a person? Why are face and limb transplants so controversial - because we can see them. People got over kidney transplants because you can't see them (you might with Michael Jackson or any of the members of Depeche Mode if there were a bright light behind them but that is another discussion). Second trimester protection is based on appearance. Oh yes, and ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny
Maybe the metric should be when the organism can feel pain. We certainly have to conform to that requirement in academic and industrial science unless we work foer NASA and get to shake a chimp's head apart to test a new helmet.
Maybe it should be when the organism can live on its own. Trouble again because are we to add a temporal component?
I forgot to add that yes - who DOES get to decide these things? I remember Hillary's comment from the early 90s in which she stated that "anyone who is deemed to have the potential for quality of life will receive health care". I never forget that a Kennedy in a coma will always have "more potential for quality of life" than me when I need a boil removed from my butt.
"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." Ha. You're funny.
Thanks John - I'm not sure why that was funny though. I was hoping the Michael Jackson thing was funny -
Amy, you mean both "Abortion needs to stop now" and "Birth control needs to stop now", right?
Ideally, yes. Birth control does it's own form of harm - to both the environment and women's bodies - too.
But that you can't see the difference in intent between abortion and birth control is telling.
With birth control, the intent is to prevent pregnancy...there is not 100% certainty when it comes to pregnancy. And while I disagree with the methods, I acknowledge that difference.
With abortion, the intent is clear: an unborn child is present and the intent is to end that life.
That's pretty absolute to me.
There is no gray area for people who stick scissors in babies' skulls and suck out their brains.
So the better summary would be I want abortion as birth control to stop.
Which means 97% of abortion stops.
Who is it who says the fertilized egg is equivalent to the Downs infant
Not the pro-aborts. 90% of kids diagnosed with Downs in utero are aborted. And we're supposed to somehow believe this is noble and progressive?
It isn't - it's evil.
Foust, I'm confused why you find the ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny thing so funny.
It's actually a fairly common thing to say among biologists.
Of course, understanding that would mean that you'd been educated in biological science past the high school level.
OK, Gman, look it up.
Fertlized unimplanted egg equals blastocyst equals first trimester equals second equals stem cell, right Amy?
Foust,
Unfortunately for you, I actually went to school specifically for this stuff. How about you answer the question about why the statement was funny?
The difference of opinion here is "when does life actually begin?" and "When is a pregnancy viable?" Is it in the blastocyst stage? Is it in the first trimester? the second? the third? after birth?
UNTIL THAT MATTER IS FIRMLY SETTLED (with absolute proof), I believe we should work on the side of caution and stop abortion.
At one time not too long ago people believed that animals did not feel pain and treated them accordingly. We are now doing the same thing with fetuses----which I find absolutely abhorrent.
And my viewpoint has nothing to do with my religious beliefs, so you atheists out there can go back to science class.
Fertlized unimplanted egg equals blastocyst equals first trimester equals second equals stem cell, right Amy?
Either answer questions directly or don't, John. This crafty-do with language is immature at best.
I oppose ESCR. It's yielded no positive results unless you consider cancerous cells "positive" results. Just as I do not support harvesting organs from inmates (as they do in China), I do not support creating embryos and destroying them in order to make "progressive" medical advancements.
Like abortion, the intent of ESCR is to destroy a human being.
Even the sperm and oocyte, although haploid, are technically alive. Questions about personhood are at least legitimate, questions of "life" are disingenuous or worse.
As for embryonic stem cells, wow, the most fantastic sales job possibly in the history of biology and the pharmaceutical industry. I am waiting to buy a washer/dryer based on stem cells because the public is being told there is nothing they can't do, hence the high approval rating for their use.
There are wonderful business plans and technologies that don't get a second look BUT if it invloves stem cells even crappy business plans and grant proposals get a second or third look. Try doing biotech in Madison - you are either a stem cell company or you aren't. Mirus was recently sold for well over a hundred million dollars and it didn't get the press Jamie Thompson gets when he farts.
ESC is all about the money, money that Wisconsin and in particular WARF has invested. But they scream bloody murder about the Repubicans, the ignoring of the cures and therapies, and the keeping of science down the whole time. The people at Wi Cell and WARF are exactly who they claim to despise.
Sorry - I have always told people that adult and embryonic stem cells have their own problems and advantages. ESC are probably more robust and pluripotent BUT are not genetically identical to any recipient. ASC may have less potential for division (each cell has a limited number of divisions, a lifespan as we know it) BUT would be genetically identical if removed from a patient and stimulated to become less mature.
Gman, the Wikipedia article on recapitulation is a pretty good explanation of why it's not the most useful explanation. This argument had been used by some in the past in the context of the abortion debate, equating the embryo at a given stage to whichever non-human organism you'd like to compare it to.
It is limited to a visual interpretation - and limited it is. That was my point. There are far better sources of info than Wikipedia -
Here are Obama's own words on being confronted with his pro abortion record:
"In the Saddleback Church forum last week, in response to Rev. Rick Warren’s question, “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?” Obama responded: “Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.”
Talk about avoidance and talking in circles. This is one of the most important issues in our country today, and he avoids a direct answer. Sorry, but that does not sit well with me. In fact, it sits less well than if he just answered the question honestly and let the voters decide if they agree with him or not. This is wishy-washy avoidance at best.
Do I want that from my president? ABSOLUTELY NO!!!!!!!!!!!
Commenting by HaloScan
