Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore


4) The question at issue is whether the Federal Government - ie the taxpayer - should be paying for the destruction of human embryos.

Now how is that actually the issue? The government would not be paying for the destruction--they would be paying for research on embryos that would be destroyed anyway. Whoever has the embryos, e.g., an in vitro clinic, has to destroy them now (or freeze them at patient expense) if they're not used.

The real issue is that the research indirectly would create incentives for the creation of embryos that would not be used for implantation. That's the "sanctity of life" argument.

But that's a thin argument, because it assumes that stem-cell researchers would have so few embryos available to them that they would actually have to go out and create extra ones just for research purposes. Is that really likely to happen?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Now how is that actually the issue? The government would not be paying for the destruction--they would be paying for research on embryos that would be destroyed anyway. Whoever has the embryos, e.g., an in vitro clinic, has to destroy them now (or freeze them at patient expense) if they're not used.

The real issue is that the research indirectly would create incentives for the creation of embryos that would not be used for implantation. That's the "sanctity of life" argument.

But that's a thin argument, because it assumes that stem-cell researchers would have so few embryos available to them that they would actually have to go out and create extra ones just for research purposes. Is that really likely to happen?

But what about the children???? What kind of world are we leaving the children???? What about the children?????

Oh, my grandpappy has Alzheimer's? Well, Leviticus says God only helps he who helps himself... where can i get me some fetuses and such?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
4) The question at issue is whether the Federal Government - ie the taxpayer - should be paying for the destruction of human embryos.

Not exactly. "There are almost 400,000 frozen embryos in the United States, most of which will be destroyed eventually. They are the source of embryos for medical research, and that is why ... not a single embryo dies because of stem-cell research."

More here, which is a follow-up to this piece.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not exactly. "There are almost 400,000 frozen embryos in the United States, most of which will be destroyed eventually. They are the source of embryos for medical research, and that is why ... not a single embryo dies because of stem-cell research."

More here, which is a follow-up to this piece.

You keep reading them science books, boy. When the Glorious Awakening comes, and God strips the clothes from the beleiveres and non-believers alike (no, unfortunately no one gets any orgy action in the story), the embryos will be brought to life, and they, along with the ghosts of all the aborted and those prevented by the pill, will gnaw the legs off the wicked while the belivers will rise to heaven.

Oh, and don't forget... everyone will be naked, but no touching.

ETA: Don't believe me? 30 million readers just might... http://www.leftbehind.com/

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You keep reading them science books, boy. When the Glorious Awakening comes, and God strips the clothes from the beleiveres and non-believers alike (no, unfortunately no one gets any orgy action in the story), the embryos will be brought to life, and they, along with the ghosts of all the aborted and those prevented by the pill, will gnaw the legs off the wicked while the belivers will rise to heaven.

Oh, and don't forget... everyone will be naked, but no touching.

ETA: Don't believe me? 30 million readers just might... http://www.leftbehind.com/

Put aside the substantive question or whether or not it's morally right, do you not see the hypocricy of someone who is pro-life approving of research on fetuses?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Put aside the substantive question or whether or not it's morally right, do you not see the hypocricy of someone who is pro-life approving of research on fetuses?

I dare you to try to say that with a straight face to someone with a parent suffering from Parkinson's or Alzheimer's. Pro-life indeed.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Put aside the substantive question or whether or not it's morally right, do you not see the hypocricy of someone who is pro-life approving of research on fetuses?

Embryos are not fetuses.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Now how is that actually the issue? The government would not be paying for the destruction--they would be paying for research on embryos that would be destroyed anyway. Whoever has the embryos, e.g., an in vitro clinic, has to destroy them now (or freeze them at patient expense) if they're not used.

You answered your own question with the "or"

The real issue is that the research indirectly would create incentives for the creation of embryos that would not be used for implantation. That's the "sanctity of life" argument.

The right-to-life argument is that embryos should not be destroyed. The creation of new embryos solely for future destruction takes it one step further.

But that's a thin argument, because it assumes that stem-cell researchers would have so few embryos available to them that they would actually have to go out and create extra ones just for research purposes. Is that really likely to happen?

Absolutely.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I dare you to try to say that with a straight face to someone with a parent suffering from Parkinson's or Alzheimer's. Pro-life indeed.

I think you are making some assumptions that may not be accurate.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Embryos are not fetuses.

What's the difference (seriously)? Is it just the stage of development?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I dare you to try to say that with a straight face to someone with a parent suffering from Parkinson's or Alzheimer's. Pro-life indeed.

This type of baseless emotional argument is way beneath you.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Not exactly. "There are almost 400,000 frozen embryos in the United States, most of which will be destroyed eventually. They are the source of embryos for medical research, and that is why ... not a single embryo dies because of stem-cell research."

"Everyone dies anyway. Therefore, the government may as well execute everyone serving life in prison without parole."

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore


The right-to-life argument is that embryos should not be destroyed. The creation of new embryos solely for future destruction takes it one step further.

Fair enough, but it's an internally inconsistent argument. The embryos would be effectively destroyed anyway. Is there perceived value from the RTLs that having a frozen embryo that will never be implanted is of some value? Who runs this movement, John Henry Williams?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Everyone dies anyway. Therefore, the government may as well execute everyone serving life in prison without parole."

Why not put 'em to work instead?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
There is a long history of convention speeches being presented by current First Ladies.

There is no precendent whatsoever for a 40 minute closing night speech given by a First Lady wannabe.

By the way, did she say anything - ANYTHING - about John Kerry in that speech?? If so, I missed it.

The question was "Is the belief that the spouse of politicians are of particular poltical relevance a post-Hillary phenomenon," not whether there was precedent for the length of THK's speech.

As for what she said, how would I know? I got better things to do than watch the convention (I did Tivo Obama, though -- he is really a hell of a speaker).