Restrictions to be lifted on stem cell research

[miir]

Good news!

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/ ... 1M20090309

[Ashur]

May as well make (federally funded) use of the material from all the (federally funded) abortions.

[Aslanna]

May as well!

[Canelek]

Makes me wonder what kinds of medical advances could have taken place over the last eaight years....

Well, guess we will find out now. This is very exciting news!

[Siji]

May as well make (federally funded) use of the material from all the (federally funded) abortions.

/point
/laugh

[miir]

May as well make (federally funded) use of the material from all the (federally funded) abortions.

Abortion has nothing to do with stem cell research.

[Funkmasterr]

May as well make (federally funded) use of the material from all the (federally funded) abortions.

Abortion has nothing to do with stem cell research.

I think the point he was making is completely valid. If the government is going to fund abortions, why not use the fetus for stem cell research? The people that have fundamental issues with stem cell research also have fundamental issues with abortion, so really there shouldn't be a problem making that happen.

[Xatrei]

I think the point he was making is completely valid. If the government is going to fund abortions, why not use the fetus for stem cell research? The people that have fundamental issues with stem cell research also have fundamental issues with abortion, so really there shouldn't be a problem making that happen.

Not that it has anything to do with stem cell research, but I was under the impression that federal funding of abortion for low-income mothers was limited only to situations where the mother's life was in danger. Shortly after Roe v. Wade, republicans AND democrats alike acted pretty fast to limit federal funding. A handful of states fund abortions for the poor, but that's not a federal issue. Also, I don't think the military provides abortion for service members or their spouses unless the mother's health is jeopardized. Maybe I'm missing something. Is this really an issue or is it just a touch of right-wing hysteria?

All of that, of course, ignores the matter of whether or not fetal tissue for an abortion is of use for stem cell research in the same way that embryonic cell samples are.

I vote "hysteria."

[Funkmasterr]

I think the point he was making is completely valid. If the government is going to fund abortions, why not use the fetus for stem cell research? The people that have fundamental issues with stem cell research also have fundamental issues with abortion, so really there shouldn't be a problem making that happen.

Not that it has anything to do with stem cell research, but I was under the impression that federal funding of abortion for low-income mothers was limited only to situations where the mother's life was in danger. Shortly after Roe v. Wade, republicans AND democrats alike acted pretty fast to limit federal funding. A handful of states fund abortions for the poor, but that's not a federal issue. Also, I don't think the military provides abortion for service members or their spouses unless the mother's health is jeopardized. Maybe I'm missing something. Is this really an issue or is it just a touch of right-wing hysteria?

All of that, of course, ignores the matter of whether or not fetal tissue for an abortion is of use for stem cell research in the same way that embryonic cell samples are.

I vote "hysteria."

How is it hysteria? How am I in any way saying something evil is taking place here or something is wrong? I was merely pointing out that - my stances on these issues aside, if federal (or state, for that matter) government is going to fund abortion (for any reason) than what reason could they possibly have for not wanting to use the stem cells from the fetus.

As far as the fetal tissue being the same as embryonic, I have no clue, it's entirely possible that it's not as useful, I'm by no means a expert on this.

I know it's tempting for you to toss insults and assume I'm putting some right wing twist on everything without even really reading what I wrote, but how about you take the time to figure out if that's whats really going on before you jump to making these idiotic comments, or don't reply to/quote me at all if that's too hard for you to do.

[Xatrei]

Describing the notion that there's some sort of federally funded abortion problem, when there is probably not (I don't have all the facts, I just asked the question, you'll note), as "hysteria" is hardly an insult. Neither is this: I think that this is a good example of why you have such a difficult time on this board. You have a hard time distinguishing between an attack on your argument and an attack on you. They're not the same. When we have people discussing issues from different - often opposing - perspectives, one side will invariably be critical of an opinion or an idea put forward by the other side. That's not a personal attack, and it's not anything to get bent out of shape about. Respond to the point if you like, or don't. Just try not to read more into a comment than there is. I think you'd be a lot more mellow if you didn't take things so personally.

Come to think of it, this goes for a few others around here, so if the shoe fits, wear it.

[miir]

I think Funk's been doing a fuck of a lot better in not getting riled up with our discussions lately.
I'm actually starting to enjoy his posts in CE... almost.

[Funkmasterr]

Describing the notion that there's some sort of federally funded abortion problem, when there is probably not (I don't have all the facts, I just asked the question, you'll note), as "hysteria" is hardly an insult. Neither is this: I think that this is a good example of why you have such a difficult time on this board. You have a hard time distinguishing between an attack on your argument and an attack on you. They're not the same. When we have people discussing issues from different - often opposing - perspectives, one side will invariably be critical of an opinion or an idea put forward by the other side. That's not a personal attack, and it's not anything to get bent out of shape about. Respond to the point if you like, or don't. Just try not to read more into a comment than there is. I think you'd be a lot more mellow if you didn't take things so personally.

Come to think of it, this goes for a few others around here, so if the shoe fits, wear it.

I definitely understand the difference between the two and have been making a effort to be better at reacting as such. In this particular situation though, I took your comment as you saying I was reacting to this issue in a hysteric, typical right wing fashion. I did not say anything about abortion being evil, stem cell research being wrong, or anything else, which is why I was confused. Either I misunderstood your intention or you misunderstood mine.

[Drasta]

woohooo!! go go stem cells =-P about time someone got our science out of the dark ages .. maybe now we will be able to compete with other countries ...

[Aslanna]

I think this needs a thread merge with the 'Ban organised religion' one.

[Gzette]

once he went all loony, Ronald Reagan was for stem cell research. FUCKING REAGAN WAS FOR IT! REAGAN HURRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[Xatrei]

I definitely understand the difference between the two and have been making a effort to be better at reacting as such. In this particular situation though, I took your comment as you saying I was reacting to this issue in a hysteric, typical right wing fashion. I did not say anything about abortion being evil, stem cell research being wrong, or anything else, which is why I was confused. Either I misunderstood your intention or you misunderstood mine.

I'll agree with what Miir said previously and give credit where credit is due. You have been better in recent weeks about not flying off the handle and being obnoxious whenever anyone says anything that defies your own beliefs. I didn't interpret your post to mean anything about whether abortion was right, wrong or in between (correct me if I'm wrong, but you're on record as being pro-choice, iirc). As I said, I was simply pointing out what I see as a bit of a straw man in the notion that there are lots of federally funded abortions to be concerned about, when the federal government and *most* states go out of their way not to pay for such services except in cases of risk to the mother's well being. You didn't bring up the point, and were merely defending Ash's point. I quoted you rather than him since yours was the most recent comment.

[Drasta]

i'd rather pay for an abortion than another welfare kid =-P ... because eventually after enough abortions shes not gonna be able to have kids ...

[Ashur]

I have no issue with abortions. I'm pro-choice. I've said this.
Planned Parenthood receives federal funding.
Planned Parenthood offers many services, including abortion.
I'm for stem cell research.

Why am I being painted as some sort of bad guy by the lefties? Isn't this THEIR stance?

[Spang]

Why am I being painted as some sort of bad guy by the lefties?

Must have been something you said.

[miir]

Why am I being painted as some sort of bad guy by the lefties? Isn't this THEIR stance?

I sensed sarcasm in your previous post...
My bad

[Xatrei]

Why am I being painted as some sort of bad guy by the lefties? Isn't this THEIR stance?

I'm terribly sorry Ash. I didn't realize that disagreeing with something you said is "painting you as a bad guy."

I could be wrong, but I don't believe PP funding from the federal government can be used directly to fund abortion services. PP provides a lot of services other than abortion, which makes up a comparatively small portion of their mission. FYI, if an aborted fetus is useful for research, I have no problem with it being used accordingly, as long as the mother consents.

[Ashur]

Why am I being painted as some sort of bad guy by the lefties? Isn't this THEIR stance?

I sensed sarcasm in your previous post...
My bad

Oh, you weren't wrong on that part. It was sarcasm that our government sponsors abortions through funding of Planned Parenthood but then refuses to allow the stem cell material to be used to further science. It was incongruent. Mind you, I know the GOP has been attacking PP on a few fronts (lately their tax exempt status).

[Ashur]

I could be wrong, but I don't believe PP funding from the federal government can be used directly to fund abortion services.

Right, and bankers aren't using TARP funds for bonuses... you see the problem with perception versus reality?

PP provides a lot of services other than abortion, which makes up a comparatively small portion of their mission.

This is absolutely true.More power to them. It's a pity people STILL don't get the message that "condom = no baby (usually)

FYI, if an aborted fetus is useful for research, I have no problem with it being used accordingly, as long as the mother consents.

Devil's Advocate here: Why do you need the "mother's" consent if the fetus is not a person? Or are we finally admitting that an abortion ends a human life?

[Spang]

Devil's Advocate here: Why do you need the "mother's" consent if the fetus is not a person?

Because it's her fetus?

[miir]

Right, and bankers aren't using TARP funds for bonuses... you see the problem with perception versus reality?

People don't get bonuses in the middle of the fiscal year.

[Xatrei]

Devil's Advocate here: Why do you need the "mother's" consent if the fetus is not a person?

This:

Because it's her fetus?

[Gzette]

In the interest of the liberal agenda, all mothers will now be referred to as fetus makers, during all terms of the pregnancy and after birth. mother's day will now be called Fetus Maker's Day. The term "fetus owner" is acceptable and may be transferred as part of a fetus liberation (abortions will now be called Fetus Liberations btw) and teaching abstinence will now be preferred to as "Unnatural education"