{OT} alternative to killing babies

Jesus H, you fanatics really stoop to low levels to try to claim any kind of moral position. Do you really, truly, hand-on-heart think this result happened because of the fantacism of so-called "pro lifers"? You think research on stem cells (which Dubya has done so much to impede) is done by folk who don't care about the embryos they work with? In the UK (to which some US researchers have been forced to flee to do stem cell work), a major theme of this news story has been the joy on the part of the researchers, that they now have an alternative -- they no longer must agonise over which should be saved: the embryo; or the grown individuals whose lives are in danger.

That you seek to score petty (and worthless) political points in the face of such joyous news -- and lie while doing it -- pushes you deep down in the pond scum. For decency's sake, grow up!

They have to do what they can considering their "moral position" was smoke and mirrors to begin with.

First of all, it "excuse FOR", not "excuse TO".

Now: Are you suggesting that some women have abortions because they want to assist in stem cell research? You seem to be implying some connection between the two things.

I can't speak for the UK, but in the US the abortion crowd was telling us constantly that embryonic stem cells were going to be the cure-all for every disease known to mankind (just exaggerating a bit) and that not federally funding it would push us back into the Dark Ages of medicine.

This story highlights that there are always alternatives to killing babies, whatever the circumstances. Stem Cell research is on the fast track even though President Bush would not sign the bill to fund it federally.

Again: Are you suggesting that the reason some women have abortions is to supply stem cell researchers?

Here we go with the interrogations again...

No, I do not suggest such at all. I suggest the abortion lobby has lost another argument.

Interrogations? Nobody's allowed to question you? Or, is there a list of permissible questions? Post it.

Now: You or someone pretending to be you said this:

"Looks like another excuse to killing babies is being eliminated by those who love life."

If you think that doesn't suggest some sort of perverse market for dead babies, just say so. I'll print it and ask my son to show it to two English teachers. We'll see what they think.

Go ahead. Maybe you'll learn something. Apparently learned researchers have.

Are you saying that your sentence did NOT draw a connection between women's decisions and stem cell research?

How about commenting on the article itself and dropping the Gestapo tactics?

They are not gestapo tactics, although I can see that my question annoys you because I'm asking whether YOU agree with what YOU wrote. Or, I need to know if I'm misinterpreting it.

So, first: I think it's cool that they can get stem cells from amnionic fluid. However, it is not free of risk, but that's not a big deal.

Now, back to what you wrote. You seem to be saying that some women decide to have an abortion because they look forward to donating biological material to researchers. If I've got it wrong, then please explain what you MEANT to say.

Good, then you like the idea of moving forward with this type of research rather than harvesting dead babies.

I already answered that question at 2:11:35 ET.

I saw that. It doesn't make sense. The abortion lobby doesn't defend the practice because it provides a nice supply of material for research. They defend the practice because certain decisions are to remain private.

They want federally funded stem cell research from harvested dead babies because in their minds it justifies continued legalization of abortion. They are running out of reasons why abortion-on-demand should be legal and are looking for ways to continue population control.

I'd like to read more about that. Which organization do you feel states that most clearly as their policy?

Good source! It also said this, which, in my mind, blows golf boy's premise out of the water (not a very difficult task, admittedly):

"Although opponents of abortion have charged that the option of fetal tissue donation will cause women to choose abortion, this fear is unfounded. The truth is, there is no evidence that the option to donate tissue to an anonymous recipient encourages a woman to terminate a pregnancy she would otherwise carry to term (Vawter & Gervais, 1993)."

If you paid attention, the stem cells that would be used would be the surplus embryos of in vitro fertilization - the ones that otherwise get thrown away. Instead, people (some people) want to put them to good use rather than discard them.

Cathy

"A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest... " (The Boxer, P. Simon)

You are the one who inferred that if other ways are found to harvest embryonic stem cells - other than via aborted fetuses/embryos, that would be a blow to those who are pro choice. Which is a bunch of baloney.

You can make such a stance - obviously, but you can't then honestly expect others to just read it & find no disagreement with it.

Cathy

Ignoring your idiotic link of abortion rights and stem cell research, I have to ask you if you think anybody who has had a baby by in vitro fertilization, is a "baby killer"? `cause that's where almost all the embryos come from for research.