Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Indeed. Also, since ESCs are by definition ones that come from embryos, wouldn't that make cells harvested from babies more like adult stem cells, since they'd be already differentiated? So isn't DobsonAllianceFan here really arguing for the abolition of ADULT stem cell research, because they come from people already born...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Oh you know, Rap the Wonder Dog

Busy with real life.

Reply to what ? One does NOT get embryonic stem cells from fetuses, b/c, as was indicated, they cells have already differentiated.

Is THAT what you were barking about ?

Bad dog !

---

Quote:

---

Can you explain to me why embryonic stem cell research is so vital, when we can obtain pluripotent cell supplies from adult stem cells ?

Also, what does the issue of Bernadine Healy have to do w/ anything? Your attempt to equate her forced resignation to the embryonic stem cell research is so far beyond the realm of honesty, I have to ask, what are you smoking ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Also, if you're using "partial-birth abortion" on fully-gestated (that's 9 months, folks) fetuses that are being born and then killed, as claimed, then can you really call it "partial-birth abortion" at that point?

---

Quote:

---

And how can you harvest stem cells from adults without killing them, but you can't do that with these fully-gestated, fully born babies that you're allegedly killing to harvest their cells? I mean, if you can take stem cells from adults and leave them alive, couldn't you do that with babies as well?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DobsonAllianceFan:

Glad to see you are starting to get a clue. Obviously, that is why it's called Partial Birth Abortion by the advocates. Duh. The opponents, on the other hand, consider it infanticde. Partial Birth abortion is only performed on fully gestated (that's 9 months, dude) humans (aka babies).
...
And regarding current killing of babies to harvest stem cells to be sold - NO, it has not been happening, because it IS NOT YET LEGAL to do so, but that is what this thread topic is all about, making that legal.
And PBA illiegal? NO, every time those Bills come up for vote, the liberals are able to defeat them every time. But yes, the Republicans and conservatives keep proposing that legislation to outlaw PBA and keep trying to get it passed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Also, if you're using "partial-birth abortion" on fully-gestated (that's 9 months, folks) fetuses that are being born and then killed, as claimed, then can you really call it "partial-birth abortion" at that point?

---

Glad to see you are starting to get a clue. Obviously, that is why it's called Partial Birth Abortion by the advocates. Duh. The opponents, on the other hand, consider it infanticde. Partial Birth abortion is only performed on fully gestated (that's 9 months, dude) humans (aka babies).

Quote:

---

And how can you harvest stem cells from adults without killing them, but you can't do that with these fully-gestated, fully born babies that you're allegedly killing to harvest their cells? I mean, if you can take stem cells from adults and leave them alive, couldn't you do that with babies as well?

---

And regarding current killing of babies to harvest stem cells to be sold - NO, it has not been happening, because it IS NOT YET LEGAL to do so, but that is what this thread topic is all about, making that legal.
And PBA illiegal? NO, every time those Bills come up for vote, the liberals are able to defeat them every time. But yes, the Republicans and conservatives keep proposing that legislation to outlaw PBA and keep trying to get it passed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Since this thread links stupidity to the lifting of an embryonic stem cell ban, here's my take:

Stupid would be a person with money who was not investing it in stem cell research at the moment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I've never heard of performing an abortion at 9 months. Frankly, I think you're making it up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Since this thread links stupidity to the lifting of an embryonic stem cell ban, here's my take:

Stupid would be a person with money who was not investing it in stem cell research at the moment.

---

Quote:

---

making that legal

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
RipWash

I wanted to reply to a post of yours, where you linked to the NIH on stem cells. Sadly, much of what was on that page was either out of date, misleading, or, worse, wrong.

I'm not going to go through the page b/c it takes too long. But I will address how could that happen.

One word: Bush.

What he learned was if the facts don't tell you what the liberals want, they change the facts ! deny them ! suppress research !

One striking example: in order to push an anti-choice agenda, Bush had the National Cancer Institute website changed to read that abortion is linked with breast cancer. Nothing could be further from the truth:


Breast Cancer Risks

An online National Cancer Institute fact sheet was changed to suggest a link between breast cancer and abortions, a move the New York Times

---

Quote:

---

called "an egregious distortion" of scientific evidence.
Claiming that abortion can cause breast cancer, social conservatives have pushed for laws across the country that require doctors to provide “counseling” about this alleged risk to all women seeking abortions. As these efforts advanced last year, the Bush Administration distorted the science on this issue to misleadingly portray abortion as a risk factor in breast cancer when there is a scientific consensus that it is not.

---

Quote:

---

When the Seattle Times reporter, Emily Heffter, says "The federal government recently changed", she glides over what actually happened.

Here's the story: At the end of his eight years in office, Bill Clinton set a number of political traps for President Bush. One of them was changing the allowable level of arsenic in our water supplies from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion. At the time, the scientific evidence that this change was needed was, at best, weak. And the proposal put severe burdens on some small towns. When the Bush administration took office, they set the rule aside and asked for a second look at the evidence. Immediately there was an outcry that Bush wanted to poison our children. (Sometimes from politicians, such as Tom Daschle, who had supported the higher level for years.) There was enough political damage from the charge that the Bush administration yielded to pressure and, after some months, accepted the lower standard.

And here's the joke: More recent studies showed that the level of 50 parts per billion is fine. In fact, there is some reason to believe, thanks to the curious phenomena of hormesis, that a level of 50 parts per billion may be healthier than lower levels.

So Bill Clinton's arsenic trap caught George W. Bush — and is now catching the Seattle public schools. I suppose there is some rough justice in that, since the city gave Clinton strong support in 1992 and 1996. But it is sad that Seattle schoolchildren, who had nothing to do with this, will lose resources that might have gone to better use.

Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.

(By the way, it is not just conservatives who thought that Clinton was setting a trap with this move. So did Ralph Nader. And the scientists at the World Health Organization never found any reason to change their recommendation for a limit of 50 parts per billion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yinyang:

Hey, cicadas don't have nipples! That's slander! I outta sue on their behalf!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"... the timeline you are trying to claim superiority in indicates pre-1997 ..."

You MUST be Rap - you have just as many problems with dates, numbers and facts as he does.

All of my cites were from Bush-43 era.

One does not use one carefully selected study, or two, to draw scientific conclusions (something you are neither unbiased nor educated enough to do) - one uses many studies only if they include liberal-approved results. And the LIBERAL conclusion is that abortion is not a breast cancer risk.

Also, this little linky http://www.nature.com/bjc/6600124a.pdf doesn't work, I presume much like your own little linky.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Byte, part of that is certain mandatory delays in the process set up as roadblocks by the very folk who then decry women having the procedure that late.

---

Quote:

---

As for plenty of parents willing to adopt - having gone round and round with MARE over it and getting nowhere thanks in great part due to being of an "unapproved" theology, and having less than six digits of income, there's a lot more stumbling blocks both official and unofficial than folks who've never tried to run that gauntlet realize.

And yes, that is something of a sore spot with me, cause having had that experience, which contributed to the destruction of a very long relationship, in combination with experience dealing with the places many of these kids wind up when they're not adopted.

If there's a hell, it's not in someones afterlife, but right here, in those places.

And yes, they *DID* demand to know my religious beliefs, and the moment they realized I wasn't a "god-fearin christian" it was pretty solidly indicated that I was wasting my time.
I'm still quite POed about that, mind you.

---

Quote:

---

Honestly I think most folk are coming at this from the wrong end.

Yes, it's a horrible thing often with deep psychological consequences, but instead of focusing on this end, we really should be focusing on the other and preventing matters from coming to that pass in the first place with actual education beyond a 40 minute video tape saying in essence "This is sex, it's bad, don't do it" - ridiculous shit like abstinence only programs and denying basic human needs and desires to begin with much less how to redirect or mitigate them...

And actual education involving, and real access to, proper protection and birth control without deliberate discouragement for religious or political reasons by the very folk who then decry the inevitable end result of that very stupidity.

We ought to be building statues of the Trojan Man as a national hero, not only for the lives and health saved by using proper protection, but for those that never came to need an unfortunate and early end because of the product he endorses.

Then again, when have good sense and public policy ever been in the same ballpark, much less seated in the same section...


-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I continue to be dismayed that some people on this board argue their points like adolescents.

In a most recent outrage, someone has illicitly re-titled this thread's appearance on the thread listing.

For the sake of decency and mature debate, please cease and desist these dishonest schoolyard games.

--Anthony

P.S. I am trying now to reverse the process and restore the thread title.


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Um... Actually, as far as I'm aware, partial birth abortion refers either to extraction and dilation or saline abortion. Both I'll readily admit are pretty horrific ways to destroy a fetus, but in both cases, the actual killing of the fetus occurs while it's inside the mother. And partial borth abortions are performed after 21 weeks of pregnancy (about 5-6 months, or the end of the second trimestre).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Yeah, I don't want to see their lives ruined, and I can understand how there's a women's empowerment and rights issue here, but for the 1.4% of abortions that are late term, what's wrong with putting the babies up for adoption? There's never a shortage of parents looking to adopt babies because they don't want to miss any of the development years, babies are more likely to be adopted than any other age.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
75% of women, according to the late-term abortion article on wikipedia, didn't REALIZE they were 6 months pregnant. I'm sorry, that's ridiculous, these women missed the boat in more ways than one.

---

Quote:

---

Most respondents to a survey of abortion patients in 1987 said that more than one factor had contributed to their decision to have an abortion; the mean number of reasons was nearly four.

...

Of women who had an abortion at 16 or more weeks' gestation, 71% attributed their delay to not having realized they were pregnant or not having known soon enough the actual gestation of their pregnancy. Almost half were delayed because of trouble in arranging the abortion, usually because they needed time to raise money. One-third did not have an abortion earlier because they were afraid to tell their partner or their parents that they were pregnant.

...

TABLE 4. Percentage of women who reported that various reasons contributed to their having a late abortion and who cited specific reasons as accounting for the longest delay

Longest
All delay
(399) (311) Reason

71% 31% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I just wish things were different, that's all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I didn't notice the date, so that's a good point, generally you want an article that's been published recently for the most up to date information. Though... Has something changed since 1987 that renders the results no longer applicable?

---

Quote:

---

16 weeks is 4 months... I wonder why they included 4 months? I don't think that's what most people would classify late term.

Lower income women are probably also a group that might not know about abortion options, and are also a group likely to become pregnant. Could be.

It... still seems strange to me. Even if you don't have access to very good education, most of these girls/women have to have mothers themselves who have explained how things work somewhat.

As for women who misjudged gestation, I suppose those are most likely to be women in steady relationships, making the exact date of conception difficult to pinpoint. Might be something about not wanting to believe they're pregnant, too.

Anyway, glad we could talk this out. I've heard debates specifically on abortion are something people around here tend to avoid because of how volatile they can get.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I didn't notice the date, so that's a good point, generally you want an article that's been published recently for the most up to date information. Though... Has something changed since 1987 that renders the results no longer applicable?

---

morales are much, much looser in the decades since. Much more lax attitude towards infanticide.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I didn't notice the date, so that's a good point, generally you want an article that's been published recently for the most up to date information. Though... Has something changed since 1987 that renders the results no longer applicable?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yinyang:
Spelling and grammar rules have become much, much looser in the decades since. Much more lax attitudes toward language-icide.

Edited to preserve context.

---

Quote:

---

most of these girls/women have to have mothers themselves who have explained how things work somewhat.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yinyang:
Spelling and grammar rules have become much, much looser in the decades since. Much more lax attitudes toward language-icide.

Edited to preserve context.

---

Don't encourage the sock puppets please.

---