Bush's first veto

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

OK, thanks for that clarification...in that case, I have no objection whatsoever! Do you recall the case I'm referring to? A woman wanted to abort her fetus/child in order to use something (thought it was stem cells) to help her ailing father. He was apparently a well-known scientist, perhaps a Nobel winner? Anyway, her argument centered around the fact that her father's life was more valuable than an unborn...raised the hair on the back of my neck instantly!

I'm not familiar with the case.
I personally do not believe that a life should be taken to preserve someone elses. In my opinion, that's just plain wrong.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

I'm not familiar with the case.
I personally do not believe that a life should be taken to preserve someone elses. In my opinion, that's just plain wrong.

... and that's exactly the position extremist anti-choicers and anti-stem cell researchers take. If you believe life begins at conception, then you can't support harvesting stem cells. Nor should you be supporting fertility clinics, but they don't tend to take their thought processes that far.

Mind you, I'm ardently pro-stem cell research and also ardently pro-choice (after much, much soul searching and hypothetical arguing with myself years ago as a teenager and young adult). And I can respect, if disagree with, people who are consistent in their beliefs about when life begins and when it is appropriate to end it. What makes me so crazy about Bush is it's all about political posturing-- stem cells, valuable, full human beings! Discarded clinic embryos... wha? What did you say? Me no understandy...

Again, guys; I love how, in the midst of all the passionate horse-race talk, these off-talk issues can come up and people can disagree and debate and toss around ideas kindly and with civility. You all make me proud to be a horse-racing fan and honored to be a member of this board.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

... and that's exactly the position extremist anti-choicers and anti-stem cell researchers take. If you believe life begins at conception, then you can't support harvesting stem cells. Nor should you be supporting fertility clinics, but they don't tend to take their thought processes that far.

Mind you, I'm ardently pro-stem cell research and also ardently pro-choice (after much, much soul searching and hypothetical arguing with myself years ago as a teenager and young adult). And I can respect, if disagree with, people who are consistent in their beliefs about when life begins and when it is appropriate to end it. What makes me so crazy about Bush is it's all about political posturing-- stem cells, valuable, full human beings! Discarded clinic embryos... wha? What did you say? Me no understandy...

Again, guys; I love how, in the midst of all the passionate horse-race talk, these off-talk issues can come up and people can disagree and debate and toss around ideas kindly and with civility. You all make me proud to be a horse-racing fan and honored to be a member of this board.

Genuine Risk,
I was responding to Somerfrost's post about a concern he had about a woman that was willing to abort her fetus so that organs could be transplanted to her father..though I don't know about the case cited.
He needed clarification as to where stem cells came from and what they were used for. I hope I provided the information requested.
Again, stem cells come from unused embryos that are surplus from "fertility clinics". At that stage, they are not viable "human beings". They are destined to be discarded should an appropriate surrogate mother not be found. The amount of available embryos sitting in a thermos of liquid nitrogen is way beyond that possibility.
My opinion is that they are NOT viable human life at that point. They are a cluster of undifferentiated cells that can be used for scientific purposes. In my belief, there is a huge difference between an embryo and a fetus.
Discarding embryos denies the scientific community of finding answers that could help many people.
If you go back to my first post on this thread, you'll see the genes that are of specific interest to my son. His quest is to find the genetic "triggers" that cause a condition that occurs AFTER stage eight mitosis called (in "lay man's terms) hole in the heart. It's when the heart malforms and blood pumps between the left and right ventricles. This condition is seen in six of ten thousand live births and the newborns are rushed to the OR for "open heart surgery".
It is my hope that he and his fellow scientists can pursue their investigations and thereby help many, without the interferance of "moral politicians".

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Genuine Risk,
I was responding to Somerfrost's post about a concern he had about a woman that was willing to abort her fetus so that organs could be transplanted to her father..though I don't know about the case cited.
He needed clarification as to where stem cells came from and what they were used for. I hope I provided the information requested.
Again, stem cells come from unused embryos that are surplus from "fertility clinics". At that stage, they are not viable "human beings". They are destined to be discarded should an appropriate surrogate mother not be found. The amount of available embryos sitting in a thermos of liquid nitrogen is way beyond that possibility.
My opinion is that they are NOT viable human life at that point. They are a cluster of undifferentiated cells that can be used for scientific purposes. In my belief, there is a huge difference between an embryo and a fetus.
Discarding embryos denies the scientific community of finding answers that could help many people.
If you go back to my first post on this thread, you'll see the genes that are of specific interest to my son. His quest is to find the genetic "triggers" that cause a condition that occurs AFTER stage eight mitosis called (in "lay man's terms) hole in the heart. It's when the heart malforms and blood pumps between the left and right ventricles. This condition is seen in six of ten thousand live births and the newborns are rushed to the OR for "open heart surgery".
It is my hope that he and his fellow scientists can pursue their investigations and thereby help many, without the interferance of "moral politicians".

DTS, I apologize if I'm being unclear-- I have NO issue with stem-cell research; I think it's offers great possibilities for all kinds of medical conditions, and I, too, think there is a difference between an embryo and a fetus, just as I think there is a difference between a fetus and a baby. I'm with the WHO; pregnancy doesn't begin until the embryo attaches to the wall of the uterus. I'm saying that assorted religious right-wingers out there will stamp their feet and yell that as soon as an egg is fertilized it is now "life" and must not be used in the name of scientific research. I was pissed-off at Bush's wussy little deceptive "compromise" back in 2001, and I'm pissed-off at his stupid pandering veto, even though I expected no better from him. My point was, if these right-wingers are forced to pursue their line of thinking far enough, they usually start backing away from the full implications of insisting life begins with a fertilized eggs, which are that fertility clinics are baby-killing factories, since they discard thousands of fertilized embryos. Which, of course, they aren't; that's silly. Just as silly as refusing to let discarded embryos be used for research.

Screaming liberal here, remember? Pro-choice, pro-sex ed, pro stem-cell research, pro-raising the minimum wage, pro universal health care and all that. Anything that can make the lives of everyday Americans better.

And thanks for the info on the specifics of embryos-- it was really interesting reading!!!

[Downthestretch55]

Genuine,
I'm with you regarding making lives better, not just for Americans, but also for all of the inhabitants of this planet.
Thanks for your positive response.
I also don't like the idea that those who use their power to deny beneficial potential deny many hopes....far too many.
What a waste!

DTS

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Genuine,
I'm with you regarding making lives better, not just for Americans, but also for all of the inhabitants of this planet.
Thanks for your positive response.
I also don't like the idea that those who use their power to deny beneficial potential deny many hopes....far too many.
What a waste!

DTS

We agree except for abortion. Here is a book you might find interesting:
"Parecon:Life After Capitalism" by Michael Albert. It has some interesting concepts, you can read about it here:
http://www.myspace,com/parecon

Bold one not weighing in on this issue.

Very interesting.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

We agree except for abortion. Here is a book you might find interesting:
"Parecon:Life After Capitalism" by Michael Albert. It has some interesting concepts, you can read about it here:
http://www.myspace,com/parecon

Somer,
The link didn't work for me. I'll pick it up at the bookstore or the library.
DTS

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

We agree except for abortion. Here is a book you might find interesting:
"Parecon:Life After Capitalism" by Michael Albert. It has some interesting concepts, you can read about it here:
http://www.myspace,com/parecon

Somer, I have a pen pal of 25 years now (we started writing when we were ten, believe it or not) who is also ardently anti-abortion, but she's also very pro-birth control, and so I respect her position and we have had a very harmonious friendship for a quarter century now. S'okay to have a different opinion; makes the world go 'round. And I think it's through fairly and openly debating the different views of issues that we all (hopefully) arrive at the best solutions.

I'd recommend to everyone, if you can find it (it's out of print, but maybe google the title and used books or something), "When Abortion Was a Crime," which looks at the roughly 100-year period when abortion was more or less illegal in the US (1867-1970). Very interesting read for both sides of the debate because at least it gives you the historical context of what you're talking about. And I'll take a look for the book you suggested, Somer, my fellow Keystonian. You can take the girl out of Pennsylvania, but you can't take Pennsylvania out of the girl...