Genuine Risk,
As I've previously stated, "one that argues with a fool demonstrates foolishness".

Please realize that I won't. Anyone that says that "some folks are developing an artificial womb" (not referenced, not cited, and totally bogus claim),
then goes on to compare genetic scientists with Mengele, and then makes personal attacks with claims: "slack-jaw drooling partisan hack", "mentally unstable", "slow", "racist", has gone forward to demonstrate my premise.
I will accept all pm's forwarded to me, (whatever that has to do with stem cell lines and genetic research factors into same).
No more lies, please.

Since you know both my first and last name, and I don't know yours, please supply.
And since you are unable to respond intelligently to any, ANY, of the points I've made, please put me on ignore as I have you.
Passive aggressive....indeed! It figures!!!!!

[quote=Bababooyee]I am against the intentional destruction of life.

You're still dodging the question. Fertility clinics intentionally create thousands of fertilized embryos that the people in charge KNOW, KNOW will never become babies. Do you think fertility clinics are moral and do you support them, knowing that they are creating, as you believe, lives that are going to be destroyed? And not a few- thousands and thousands and thousands? Every single day? It's a yes or no question. Do you support them or don't you?

Of course doctors intentionally harm one person to save another- it happens every time someone donates a kidney. Next argument please.

I don't buy the, "who's to stop people moving onto blacks and infirm" argument. I know many conservatives who love the "slippery slope" argument (see Santorum and his "man on dog" theory) because it lets them live in their happy black-and-white world of extremes without having to address the mitigating crayola box of common sense. Welcome to the reality-based community, folks. Colorful here, isn't it?

B, you'll never convince me that a clump of 3-day-old cells is the same as a cystic fibrosis kid. And I suspect the average American is capable of telling the difference, too. But it's easy to convince me that diabetes, Parkinson's, cystic fibrosis and yes, women being forced to carry children they don't want to term causes enormous pain and suffering all over the world. And that's the rub and why we won't see eye-to-eye on this. And why donating unused embryos to medical research is not going to end up with cystic fibrosis kids being euthanized. Because it's not the same, any more than bestiality is the same as homosexuality.

Addressing Somer's earlier post about abortion- I don't know that there is anyone who is actually "pro-abortion" anymore than there is anyone who is actually "pro-amputation." But I think pro-choice folks understand that people are going to have sex. So, in a full-color crayola world, what do we do? Do we make comprehensive sex-ed available, and contraceptives available so that the number of unplanned pregnancies and keep abortion legal so that women who are raped or screw up or whose bodies turn on them can end the pregnancy without jeopardizing their lives or health? Or do we outlaw abortion and tell ourselves those women who get pregnant will carry those fetuses to term and magically find the economic means to bear the babies and to raise them? Because, of course, conservatives against abortion are also usually against welfare, universal health care, and contraceptive education and funding. Which position, really, in the end is truly more pro-life?

Here's wikipedia on the artificial uterus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus

I'm surprised B is cheering for the artificial uterus, seeing as how he's all about the slippery slope. See artificial uteruses and this piece:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

How do you recommend a nation support all the unwanted babies born as a result of artificial uteruses, B? Or should we just let them starve to death once they're born, since you're against government support?

And what crystal ball do YOU have, that you can see that? And what to do with the lives that don't have anyone waiting for them?

B, here's what you said:

it is absolutely unprecedented in the history of modern medicine and science to accept the intentional harming of one to provide treatment for another. UNPRECEDENTED (outside of Mengele and the like - a Nazi doctor whose research included harming and murdering jews to further medicine, etc.).

I knew your argument would be that donating a kidney is voluntary (just as I will argue, since I don't believe a clump of cells is the same as a two-year-old, that the hopeful parents who supplied the egg and sperm for embryos have a right to decide what is done with them), but your statement didn't say that. In many circumstances, doctors do harm one in order to help another.

I also think you need to get your Margaret Sanger info off of something besides your right-wing websites. Nowhere in her writings does she favor one race over another, and denounced the Nazi programs you love to bring up at the drop of a hat as "sad and horrible." She was also opposed to euthanasia: 'Nor do we believe,' wrote Sanger in Pivot of Civilization, 'that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding.'

And:"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.... We are convinced that racial regeneration, like individual regeneration, must come 'from within.' That is, it must be autonomous, self-directive, and not imposed from without."[13]

We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother... Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment."

She wasn't perfect- she believed the severely retarded should not be permitted to reproduce, I don't know how supportive she was of interracial marriage (by "racial betterment" I am inclined to think she felt each race should improve itself within its own race), and the whole idea of eugenics today is a little freaky to read about. But Sanger believed in it through personal choice to practice birth control, not through state-coerced destruction of handicapped children.

I doubt, had she been the racist you believe her to be, Martin Luther King, Jr. would have had the respect for her he did.

And here's another quote from her:
"To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."

Maybe you should actually bother to read up on the historical figures you're so eager to misquote and slander. Or maybe get your info on them from more than your conservative websites.

MS said "All children are mentally ill" I didn't get that from a conservative website!

Well now, I just googled "Sanger" and "all children are mentally ill" and nothing comes up. Want to give specifics, Timm? Where did you find that quote?

Genuine Risk,
The links you provided are interesting.
The first one, if one takes the time to read it, states that the technology to create an artificial uterus does not currently exist.
I'm really not sure what Margaret Sanger and artificial uteruses have to do with Bush's veto of expansion of stem cell research.
This thread has taken some strange twists.

"Authorities tell us that 75 % of the school-children are defective. This means that no less than fifteen million schoolchildren, out of 22,000,000 in the United States, are physically or mentally below par."



i found the above---not all children, but she certainly had a dim view of 3/4ths of them!

glad this came up, i found out a good bit this am in my diggings about sanger--didn't know much of this beforehand. she sounds pretty wacky.

Mengele, Sanger...hmm...can we bring other names to this topic? Thoughts regarding Gengis Khan and Osama bin Laden and their positions recarding the expansion of stem cell lines?
Some straws just seem a bit out of the grasp, though the grasping continues.

Oh my Gods and Goddesses, could you be taking that phrase any more out of context? (B would be very angry with you right now for that). What say you read the entire piece from which you took that quote and get back to me:

http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/ab...sanger_03.html

In case you don't feel like actually reading the woman in her own words- I'll fill you in. "Physically and mentally below par" is referring to the fact that these kids were malnourished and under-educated because they had to leave school at a young age and go work in mills and things that kids had to do before liberals pushed for child-labor laws, NOT that they were mentally retarded. Sanger's point was that if women could control their reproduction, they would have fewer children BY CHOICE, which would then make available a larger share of limited resources on each individual child. Have you ever ben on birth control, Danzig? You can thank Sanger going to jail several times over it- birth control was illegal for MARRIED COUPLES until the 1960's. She was a trailblazer in believing women should be allowed to choose when to have kids- and in recognizing lower birth rates also means lower rates of poverty. Which is why she set up centers in poor neighborhoods. Not because she was racist.

Here's more from that same piece I linked to. Boy, she sure hated kids, doesn't she?

"It is a truism that children are the chief asset of a nation. Yet while the United States government allotted 92.8 per cent. of its appropriations for 1920 toward war expenses, three per cent. to public works, 3.2 per cent. to ``primary governmental functions,'' no more than one per cent. is appropriated to education, research and development. Of this one per cent., only a small proportion is devoted to public health. The conservation of childhood is a minor consideration. While three cents is spent for the more or less doubtful protection of women and children, fifty cents is given to the Bureau of Animal Industry, for the protection of domestic animals. In 1919, the State of Kansas appropriated $25,000 to protect the health of pigs, and $4,000 to protect the health of children. In four years our Federal Government appropriated--roughly speaking--$81,000,000 for the improvement of rivers; $13,000,000 for forest conservation; $8,000,000 for the experimental plant industry; $7,000,000 for the experimental animal industry; $4,000,000 to combat the foot and mouth disease; and less than half a million for the protection of child life."

Excuse me while I go rest my head on my desk for a while. Oy vey.