Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound

[Philbert]

Originally Posted by kunsunoke

The result of IVF is "spare" embryos, which are then used for experimentation or destroyed, similar to how Mengele experimented on / destroyed Jewish and Rom kids.



Reproduction in general or IVF? If it's the latter then the churches that make up the majority of Christianity on planet Earth oppose the practice.



Why specifically are they more 'wanted'?

Is the genetic factor really that important? And if it is, what are the implications of that importance?



Other than sharing the same genetic material, what specifically is the 'benefit'?

Do adopted kids suck or something because they don't share the same gene pool as Mom & Pop?

IVF helps people have kids. Having kids is considered good by almost all religions. The "benefits" of IVF are therefore the same as the benefits claimed for kids born by other means.

IVF kids are all wanted. Nobody falls into an IVF clinic by accident. People do get pregnant by accident.

Suggesting that I am somehow denigrating adopted children is silly. No, they don't "suck", but yet, most people decide to have children of their own rather than adopt and nobody calls them out on it. Indeed, most of the time, producing kids is good according to religion, but if the child is conceived through IVF it's not good and you should adopt, and how dare you care about having children of your own. Hypocrisy to justify the corner that certain religions have painted themselves into by hanging on to their backwards attitudes to sex and technology.

[kunsunoke]

Originally Posted by pyld

Tell you what--man up, and put that in an e-mail to Nancy Reagan. As progressive as she certainly is. Hit up Orrin Hatch. Or Bill Frist. Liberals, all.

Were those people present in this forum arguing in favor of embryonic stem cell research the discussion would go no differently on my part.

It seems you're confusing me with so many of the individuals on your side of the aisle, who seem to fawn over flawed politicians (tax cheats and outright criminals) that give them what they want. I don't have to carry water for anyone, even when they agree with me more than 75% of the time.

Secondly--thanks to the bible thumpers in the previous administration, the first FDA approval for any kind of embryonic stem cell treatment trial in humans were not given until February of 2009. It's a bit early, given that the very first trials are underway to declare a lack of progress--in fact, the lack of progress is the direct result of an idiot (GWB) crossing religion and science.

Was wondering when you'd get around GWB and the whole specter of teh evol bible thumpers. From my perspective its an issue of liberty and proper science, though, and I've stated so repeatedly.

If you really think that stem cell research is a smokescreen for abortion, your beliefs and/or tinfoil hat is getting in the way of the reality sensor. Really.

It is a smokescreen for abortion.

pyld, please recall that I asked you to cite one example of a tangible, usable cure derived from embryonic stem cell research. It seems you couldn't even do that. Which is unsurprising to me, because there have been none. By contrast there have been scores of cures recorded from fetal cord blood stem cells and adult stem cells.

But don't just take my word for it.

Hwang Woo Suk - cooking the books is much cooler than actual research.

Also, this embryonic stem cell research isn't all that - in fact it just might be hazardous to patients.

hazardous - pt 2

hazardous - pt 3

Given that this practice (embryonic stem cell research) is ineffective and potentially dangerous, what other reason is there for supporting it - other than promoting abortion?

The notion that there are hoards of people out there who are "proponents" of abortion is sad, really. It's a common tactic--"abortionists," "proponents of abortion," et al. It's meant to paint folks who wish to maintain a woman's right to choose as evil. Newsflash: people don't usually "promote" abortions (it's a rather disgusting characterization that the right makes)--they promote the choice.

Planned Parenthood makes money from abortion. They have absolutely no incentive not to perform the procedure. Their website literature reflects that.

Abortion doctors make money from abortion.

So do NARAL and NOW and every other "reproductive rights" organization. They derive their donations from those who wish to ensure that abortionists have a continued revenue stream thanks to an imaginary "right".

It allows those who are unable to otherwise conceive to bear children. That individual right trumps any religious objection that some percentage of society may have.

It would be more correct to state that IVF allows vain people with fertility problems to designer-select their babies based on their own personal genetics. In the process of doing that they create more human life than they can ever give birth to (due to the multiple embryos fertilized and "not used" - except for embryonic stem cell research and other Frankenstein-esque atrocities).

The alternatives (adoption) appear to be unthinkable to these people.

This is yet another imaginary "right" as determined by the progressive community.

Besides which, if we talk about benefits to "society at large," we might as well open the can of worms regarding "unwanted/ill-advised/unsupportable" pregnancy again--and we know where that ends up.

Yes - it results in eugenics.

Can't have too many little brown kids running around.

Welcome to my ignore list. It takes a great deal of dedication and effort to make it, but comparing IVF to the Nazis is quite enough.

Honestly, I really don't give a fuck. But I have to say it's a bit pathetic of you to ding my rep for stating my opinion. Yours are far more offensive, IMO.

Better yet--man up, find someone who is living a happy live having been conceived IVF, and tell them it's a result of Nazilike behavior. Or don't they count?

Why exactly is a person who can't tolerate contrasting opinions telling me to man up?

I didn't say IVF babies didn't count. I'm only stating that their unborn brothers and sisters count as well. You're the one defending IVF and embryonic stem cell research, after all. The latter is designer genetics and the former the gruesome result. If my confronting you with that truth irritates you, so be it. I'm not going to dispense with the truth just to soothe your fake moral outrage.

[Philbert]

Phase 1: Outlaw federal funding for embryonic stem cell research
Phase 2: Cite lack of research showing benefits from embryonic stem cells, and conclude they must be useless
Phase 3: ???
Phase 4: Profit

[kunsunoke]

Originally Posted by Philbert

IVF helps people have kids. Having kids is considered good by almost all religions. The "benefits" of IVF are therefore the same as the benefits claimed for kids born by other means.

Those benefits only exist to those IVF babies that actually get to be born. Most of them aren't born, though.

IVF kids are all wanted.

Not all of them, Phil.

Nobody falls into an IVF clinic by accident. People do get pregnant by accident.

I don't know that I'd call it an accident. More like statistical inevitability for people who engage in sexual intercourse, protected or otherwise.

Ultimately sex makes babies. Sometimes that happens even when contraception is used properly.

Suggesting that I am somehow denigrating adopted children is silly.

I never suggested you thought that, Phil.

Parents who go to IVF clinics apparently do think so - it's the IVF clinic's reason for being. Adoption is off the radar screen for them because the kids they produce have to have their genes. They have to experience all of fertility or it's not really fertility.

And strangely enough, those IVF parents seem to guard their fertilized embryos with extreme zeal. Most refuse to let other prospective parents use the already-fertilized embryos to have kids.

What do you suppose they'd do if this happened?

It's not just an isolated occurrence, either.

No, they don't "suck", but yet, most people decide to have children of their own rather than adopt and nobody calls them out on it.

Most people don't have fertility problems, so it's really not an issue of relevance here.

Some folks without fertility problems adopt kids anyway.

Inevitably, when one walks into an IVF clinic requesting service one makes the decision that one's own genetic pool is paramount, trumping science and nature.

Indeed, most of the time, producing kids is good according to religion, but if the child is conceived through IVF it's not good

The kids produced through IVF are just fine, actually. Only some of them get to be born, however. The process by which they are produced is flawed and ultimately results in spare human beings that are never born but allowed to become experimental subjects like the kids in Monty Python's Meaning of Life.

and you should adopt, and how dare you care about having children of your own.

We're coming inexorably back to the crux of the entire argument - e.g. where life begins. Scientific evidence suggests conception as that point. The embryo has its own unique genetics, and inevitably develops its own internal organs, brain, heart, transport system, physical characteristics, etc. as gestation continues.

Subsequently if one engages in IVF one inevitably creates more life than one "desires". To destroy those lives in pursuit of (non-existent) cures for the rich and famous ultimately destroys liberty.

Likewise it strikes at the core of medical and scientific ethics.

The Hippocratic Oath states "First, do no harm..."

Hypocrisy to justify the corner that certain religions have painted themselves into by hanging on to their backwards attitudes to sex and technology.

Well, I didn't think we were on the subject of religion. However, I'd suggest that perhaps the attitudes you decry may be more in line with liberty than you probably think.

[kunsunoke]

Originally Posted by Philbert

Phase 1: Outlaw federal funding for embryonic stem cell research
Phase 2: Cite research showing lack of benefits / hazards to patients from embryonic stem cells, and conclude further outlays and research is useless.
Phase 3: Fund adult / cord blood stem cell research instead, which has a better track record.
Phase 4: Profit

/fixed

Note - Phase 1 never occurred anyway.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by Philbert

Phase 1: Outlaw federal funding for embryonic stem cell research
Phase 2: Cite lack of research showing benefits from embryonic stem cells, and conclude they must be useless
Phase 3: ???
Phase 4: Profit

If embryonic stem cells are the answer why not let private industry fund the research? Why do federal dollars need to be spent on medical research? If there is a need the free market is best equiped to meet that need. Not the federal government.

[Philbert]

Originally Posted by adymond

If embryonic stem cells are the answer why not let private industry fund the research? Why do federal dollars need to be spent on medical research? If there is a need the free market is best equiped to meet that need. Not the federal government.

An interesting question but hardly the point. Federal dollars are spent on research - lots of them. And one single area of research has been singled out for a federal funding embargo. The issue is the exclusion of embryonic stem cell research from the normal funding process, and the folly of pre-emptively declaring such research useless.

[pyld]

Originally Posted by adymond

If embryonic stem cells are the answer why not let private industry fund the research? Why do federal dollars need to be spent on medical research? If there is a need the free market is best equiped to meet that need. Not the federal government.

Sure, but that's a bigger question: should the feds be funding any research? My answer is no, but if we've crossed that divide, I think it would benefit the government to allow scientists to decide, not religion (which is essentially what happened under GWB).

[ehidle]

There has been much PooPooing of PP in this thread.

PP is not just a baby-killing factory like some in this thread have implied. Let's look at reality here:

PP may be a left-leaning organization, but it is one that provides very low cost medical services, including routine exams, treatment of HPV-related cervical issues, pre-pregnancy and pre-natal nutritional and wellness counseling, delivery, and yes, they are also an abortion provider, and will assist with adoption.

They do some things that the right does not approve of, but they also do many things that save the lives of both mothers and unborn infants who would otherwise not be able to afford pre-natal medical care and counseling.

For all the "bad" stuff they do, they also do a lot of "good" stuff. It's important to remember that. They get funding from many sources, not just taxpayers, and as a result they are able to save low income earners a lot of money, or even provide free medical care.

I don't know what the statistics are, but I'd go out on a limb and speculate that they probably save more unborn babies than they abort.

[kunsunoke]

Originally Posted by Philbert

An interesting question but hardly the point. Federal dollars are spent on research - lots of them. And one single area of research has been singled out for a federal funding embargo. The issue is the exclusion of embryonic stem cell research from the normal funding process, and the folly of pre-emptively declaring such research useless.

Yes, but the Feds, like any other entity funding research, ultimately have the discretion about what they choose to fund and what they don't. They may choose to discontinue funding based on ethical concerns, and doing so is entirely appropriate. They may also choose to fund more profitable means for achieving the same goal.

Just because the Feds decide to waste money on crap research all the time doesn't mean we should in this case as well. Researchers aren't entitled to soft money, even though they think they should be.

And there is nothing pre-emptive about choosing to de-fund something with as poor of a track record. ONE END RESULT