Obama's E.O. on lifting Embryonic Stem Cell ban is driving AURaptor crazy!

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 23:36
VIEWED: 9713
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

KWICKO

Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Indeed. Also, since ESCs are by definition ones that come from embryos, wouldn't that make cells harvested from babies more like adult stem cells, since they'd be already differentiated? So isn't DobsonAllianceFan here really arguing for the abolition of ADULT stem cell research, because they come from people already born...

Kinda wondered about that myself.

Also, if you're using "partial-birth abortion" on fully-gestated (that's 9 months, folks) fetuses that are being born and then killed, as claimed, then can you really call it "partial-birth abortion" at that point?

And how can you harvest stem cells from adults without killing them, but you can't do that with these fully-gestated, fully born babies that you're allegedly killing to harvest their cells? I mean, if you can take stem cells from adults and leave them alive, couldn't you do that with babies as well? At which point, it's not Embryonic Stem Cell research at all, but rather Baby Stem Cell research. Haven't really heard much hubbub about that...

I think AuPuppet is just making stuff up again.

Mike

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

- Anthem, by Leonard Cohen

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:45 PM

Just not seeing rue's reply. Huh.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

RUE

Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:57 PM

Oh you know, Rap the Wonder Dog

Busy with real life.

Reply to what ? One does NOT get embryonic stem cells from fetuses, b/c, as was indicated, they cells have already differentiated.

Is THAT what you were barking about ?

Bad dog !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:00 PM

Rue, you beat me to the punch. I WAS gonna say...

"It's there Rapo!
You just need to find it!
Fetch!"

And them let him hunt thru the thread for an hour or so. Shoot, we could'a all gaslighted him for a long time... making up quotes and arguing about stuff from a post that wasn't even there!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:01 PM

Good times. The Sisters hunting at their best.

RUE

Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:02 PM

Did anyone hear whining or barking somewhere ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:03 PM

Naw ,just that proto-fascist bigoted hypocrite again. He said sumpthin' ...

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Oh you know, Rap the Wonder Dog

Busy with real life.

Reply to what ? One does NOT get embryonic stem cells from fetuses, b/c, as was indicated, they cells have already differentiated.

Is THAT what you were barking about ?

Bad dog !

That wasn't anywhere near the question I asked. It was in reference to pluripotency in cells, and in regards to Dr Healy, and her allegedly being some sort of lacky for the GOP.

No big deal though.

*edit - here it was:

Quote:
Can you explain to me why embryonic stem cell research is so vital, when we can obtain pluripotent cell supplies from adult stem cells ?

Also, what does the issue of Bernadine Healy have to do w/ anything? Your attempt to equate her forced resignation to the embryonic stem cell research is so far beyond the realm of honesty, I have to ask, what are you smoking ?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:14 PM

Yanno Wulf, in order for title changes to be funny (or indeed have any impact at all) they have to have a shred of truth in them.

Truth hurts, don't it?

Distant misses? Not so much.

Anyway, to the topic at hand:

ESC are derived from embryos. (Must be where they got that name. ) This is before differentiation occurs.... before even the placenta starts forming. Peeps who agonize over abortions and partial-birth abortions are agonizing over nothing. The only ones who would have an issue with ESC research are those who believe that human life begins at conception. But if that's not your belief, don't create misleading scenarios for yourself

"Lifting a ban" does NOT "mandate" research.

The kind of "blue sky" stage of research that ESC involves is usually funded by government. That is the way of research: nearly all of the big discoveries (polymerase chain reaction, which allowed DNA to be magified to the point where detailed genetic studies could be done; the internet; solar cells and other space technology) were initally investigated with government money. (The only corporation that I know that still funds blue-sky research is IBM, altho Bell Labs/AT&T was pretty good too.)

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, March 13, 2009 5:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Also, if you're using "partial-birth abortion" on fully-gestated (that's 9 months, folks) fetuses that are being born and then killed, as claimed, then can you really call it "partial-birth abortion" at that point?

Glad to see you are starting to get a clue. Obviously, that is why it's called Partial Birth Abortion by the advocates. Duh. The opponents, on the other hand, consider it infanticde. Partial Birth abortion is only performed on fully gestated (that's 9 months, dude) humans (aka babies).

Quote:

And how can you harvest stem cells from adults without killing them, but you can't do that with these fully-gestated, fully born babies that you're allegedly killing to harvest their cells? I mean, if you can take stem cells from adults and leave them alive, couldn't you do that with babies as well?

And regarding current killing of babies to harvest stem cells to be sold - NO, it has not been happening, because it IS NOT YET LEGAL to do so, but that is what this thread topic is all about, making that legal.
And PBA illiegal? NO, every time those Bills come up for vote, the liberals are able to defeat them every time. But yes, the Republicans and conservatives keep proposing that legislation to outlaw PBA and keep trying to get it passed.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, March 13, 2009 7:12 AM

Since this thread links stupidity to the lifting of an embryonic stem cell ban, here's my take:

Stupid would be a person with money who was not investing it in stem cell research at the moment.

CITIZEN

Friday, March 13, 2009 10:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DobsonAllianceFan:

Glad to see you are starting to get a clue. Obviously, that is why it's called Partial Birth Abortion by the advocates. Duh. The opponents, on the other hand, consider it infanticde. Partial Birth abortion is only performed on fully gestated (that's 9 months, dude) humans (aka babies).
...
And regarding current killing of babies to harvest stem cells to be sold - NO, it has not been happening, because it IS NOT YET LEGAL to do so, but that is what this thread topic is all about, making that legal.
And PBA illiegal? NO, every time those Bills come up for vote, the liberals are able to defeat them every time. But yes, the Republicans and conservatives keep proposing that legislation to outlaw PBA and keep trying to get it passed.

Still no proof I see.

It's not been happening, but if Federal Funding is given to ESC, it definitely will? We're talking about Federal Funding of ESC, the only person jabbering on about partial-birth abortions like a delusional fool is you.

Hang on, what am I saying like for?

Really, if you're going to lie, could you at least put a little effort in to making it believable AU? I mean at least PN puts funny pictures in his posts.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KWICKO

Friday, March 13, 2009 11:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Also, if you're using "partial-birth abortion" on fully-gestated (that's 9 months, folks) fetuses that are being born and then killed, as claimed, then can you really call it "partial-birth abortion" at that point?

Glad to see you are starting to get a clue. Obviously, that is why it's called Partial Birth Abortion by the advocates. Duh. The opponents, on the other hand, consider it infanticde. Partial Birth abortion is only performed on fully gestated (that's 9 months, dude) humans (aka babies).
Quote:

And how can you harvest stem cells from adults without killing them, but you can't do that with these fully-gestated, fully born babies that you're allegedly killing to harvest their cells? I mean, if you can take stem cells from adults and leave them alive, couldn't you do that with babies as well?

And regarding current killing of babies to harvest stem cells to be sold - NO, it has not been happening, because it IS NOT YET LEGAL to do so, but that is what this thread topic is all about, making that legal.
And PBA illiegal? NO, every time those Bills come up for vote, the liberals are able to defeat them every time. But yes, the Republicans and conservatives keep proposing that legislation to outlaw PBA and keep trying to get it passed.

Cites, please?

That's twice I've asked. Or am I just supposed to take your word for it?

I've never heard of performing an abortion at 9 months. Frankly, I think you're making it up.

Mike

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

- Anthem, by Leonard Cohen

KWICKO

Friday, March 13, 2009 11:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Since this thread links stupidity to the lifting of an embryonic stem cell ban, here's my take:

Stupid would be a person with money who was not investing it in stem cell research at the moment.

I see you've changed your tune somewhat on putting money into stem cell research.

Does that mean Obama is back in your good graces again?

[edited to add: Don't take offense - I'm just inserting a bit-o-snark. ]

CITIZEN

Friday, March 13, 2009 12:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I've never heard of performing an abortion at 9 months. Frankly, I think you're making it up.

Undoubtedly

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 13, 2009 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Since this thread links stupidity to the lifting of an embryonic stem cell ban, here's my take:

Stupid would be a person with money who was not investing it in stem cell research at the moment.

As I've said before, there's stem cell research, (adult ) and then there's ( embryonic stem cell research ) Bush , to his credit , supported funding for stem cell research, more than any other President in U.S. history. Good for W on that.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 13, 2009 1:14 PM

Quote:
making that legal

You're an idiot. What DO you do with that brain of yours????

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

RUE

Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:59 PM

RipWash

I wanted to reply to a post of yours, where you linked to the NIH on stem cells. Sadly, much of what was on that page was either out of date, misleading, or, worse, wrong.

I'm not going to go through the page b/c it takes too long. But I will address how could that happen.

One word: Bush.

Bush wanted to nullify the new, lower, acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water. So he declared them a product of 'politics' and said he wanted them to be based on 'sound science'. He pushed it off to the NAS (The National Academy of Sciences) for study. After a year or so, the NAS got back to him and said - not only are the new low levels sound science, they could be even lower! So, it bit him in the butt.

What he learned from that was if the facts don't tell you what you want - change the facts ! deny them ! suppress research !

One striking example: in order to push an anti-choice agenda, Bush had the National Cancer Institute website changed to read that abortion is linked with breast cancer. Nothing could be further from the truth:

Breast Cancer Risks

An online National Cancer Institute fact sheet was changed to suggest a link between breast cancer and abortions, a move the New York Times called "an egregious distortion" of scientific evidence.
Claiming that abortion can cause breast cancer, social conservatives have pushed for laws across the country that require doctors to provide “counseling” about this alleged risk to all women seeking abortions. As these efforts advanced last year, the Bush Administration distorted the science on this issue to misleadingly portray abortion as a risk factor in breast cancer when there is a scientific consensus that it is not.

There are many examples - below are two more.
(suppressed study finding)
The study was commissioned by the International Joint Commission (IJC)—a Canadian–U.S. group that advises both countries on Great Lakes governance issues—and carried out by researchers at CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The report, Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern, remains under wraps.
The report was scheduled to be released last July. (2007)

(suppressed research)
Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions
The severity of damaging human-induced climate change depends not only on the magnitude of the change but also on the potential for irreversibility. This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop.

***************************************************************

In sum: just because it's on a Bush-era government-website, doesn't make it true.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, March 27, 2009 6:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
RipWash

I wanted to reply to a post of yours, where you linked to the NIH on stem cells. Sadly, much of what was on that page was either out of date, misleading, or, worse, wrong.

I'm not going to go through the page b/c it takes too long. But I will address how could that happen.

One word: Bush.

What he learned was if the facts don't tell you what the liberals want, they change the facts ! deny them ! suppress research !

One striking example: in order to push an anti-choice agenda, Bush had the National Cancer Institute website changed to read that abortion is linked with breast cancer. Nothing could be further from the truth:

Breast Cancer Risks

An online National Cancer Institute fact sheet was changed to suggest a link between breast cancer and abortions, a move the New York Times

EH? NYT is your scientific source?

Quote:

called "an egregious distortion" of scientific evidence.
Claiming that abortion can cause breast cancer, social conservatives have pushed for laws across the country that require doctors to provide “counseling” about this alleged risk to all women seeking abortions. As these efforts advanced last year, the Bush Administration distorted the science on this issue to misleadingly portray abortion as a risk factor in breast cancer when there is a scientific consensus that it is not.

You did not specify which Bush you are referring to above, perhaps you were interchanging the 2 for convenience of your distortions.
Context of your post implies Bush43, but the timeline you are trying to claim superiority in indicates pre-1997, so that would be Bush41.

Regardless, by 1997 some research showing high correlation between Uncompleted First Pregnancy and later Breast Cancer had alreaqdy been completed and published, and the factor of Extened Lactation Period also decreasing Breast Cancer risk had also been denoted, but not clearly enough defined to proclaim without further study.
http://www.abortioncancer.com/estgen.htm
That was from 1997.
Other studies had also been completed by 1998 and published by 1999, and the implications that some of these Uncompleted First Pregnancies would be abortions was not lost, and the liberal abortion advocates had all pledged an onslaught of liberal studies to prove the opposite in numerous unbiased and objective liberal research studies.
The liberals were able to prevent the public from finding this life-saving information on Clinton era government websites or documents, but then Bush43 was elected. After 6 years of obfuscation, this lifesaving information was finally allowed to be presented on the NIH pages. Even today, carefully reading the pro-abortion propaganda, one will find they still admit that "full term pregnancies before age 35 reduces lifetime risk of breast cancer" - whic is merely a rewording of the origianlly discovered facts.
Another linky:
http://www.nature.com/bjc/6600124a.pdf

Nice try at bastardizing the chronology of your heroic subversions, but you need to delete more history from the web to make it believable.

Most papers on the subject still point out that the European studies are far more accurate due to reporting validity of abortions.
Some still point out that the "genetic" links to these brest cancers are actually "societal" links due to religious and morals of the families who engage in abortion over generations - mom had an abortion as a teenager, so daughter is welcome to experiment sexually at young age, having abortions before adulthood, or at least her first pregnancy, thus propagating the Uncompleted First Pregnancy trend in that family.

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 27, 2009 11:12 AM

Rue,

I have to question your facts on the issue of Clinton's arsenic trap for Bush.

Quote:
When the Seattle Times reporter, Emily Heffter, says "The federal government recently changed", she glides over what actually happened.

Here's the story: At the end of his eight years in office, Bill Clinton set a number of political traps for President Bush. One of them was changing the allowable level of arsenic in our water supplies from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion. At the time, the scientific evidence that this change was needed was, at best, weak. And the proposal put severe burdens on some small towns. When the Bush administration took office, they set the rule aside and asked for a second look at the evidence. Immediately there was an outcry that Bush wanted to poison our children. (Sometimes from politicians, such as Tom Daschle, who had supported the higher level for years.) There was enough political damage from the charge that the Bush administration yielded to pressure and, after some months, accepted the lower standard.

And here's the joke: More recent studies showed that the level of 50 parts per billion is fine. In fact, there is some reason to believe, thanks to the curious phenomena of hormesis, that a level of 50 parts per billion may be healthier than lower levels.

So Bill Clinton's arsenic trap caught George W. Bush — and is now catching the Seattle public schools. I suppose there is some rough justice in that, since the city gave Clinton strong support in 1992 and 1996. But it is sad that Seattle schoolchildren, who had nothing to do with this, will lose resources that might have gone to better use.

Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.

(By the way, it is not just conservatives who thought that Clinton was setting a trap with this move. So did Ralph Nader. And the scientists at the World Health Organization never found any reason to change their recommendation for a limit of 50 parts per billion.

http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/006132.html

"As much as I respect what he's doing, really the economy is something he should focus on more than the brackets. "
- Duke University basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski, after Obama snubbed Duke in his Final Four picks.

The U.S. economy WAS on fire under Bush, for 6 years. Until the Democrats took control of Congress. It's been all down hill since then.

YINYANG

Friday, March 27, 2009 12:06 PM

"Obama's E.O. on lifting Embryonic Stem Cell ban is the absolute bee's knees! It's the wasp's waist! It's the cicada's nipples!"

Hey, cicadas don't have nipples! That's slander! I outta sue on their behalf!

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 27, 2009 12:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:

Hey, cicadas don't have nipples! That's slander! I outta sue on their behalf!

I think the word you're looking for is libel. Slander concerns the spoken word. Libel is an untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media.

"As much as I respect what he's doing, really the economy is something he should focus on more than the brackets. "
- Duke University basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski, after Obama snubbed Duke in his Final Four picks.

The U.S. economy WAS on fire under Bush, for 6 years. Until the Democrats took control of Congress. It's been all down hill since then.

YINYANG

Friday, March 27, 2009 12:19 PM

Ah, libel, then. Thanks. It's definitely important to sue for the right thing.

RUE

Friday, March 27, 2009 3:50 PM

"... the timeline you are trying to claim superiority in indicates pre-1997 ..."

You MUST be Rap - you have just as many problems with dates, numbers and facts as he does.

All of my cites were from Bush-43 era.

One does not use one carefully selected study, or two, to draw scientific conclusions (something you are neither unbiased nor educated enough to do) - one uses many studies. And the SCEINTIFIC conclusion is that abortion is not a breast cancer risk.

Also, this little linky http://www.nature.com.bjc/6600124a.pdf doesn't work, I presume much like your own little linky.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Friday, March 27, 2009 3:55 PM

"At the time, the scientific evidence that this change was needed was, at best, weak."

From a POLITICAL website ? So, while you chide me for using the NYTimes as a reference, you use a POLITICAL opinion rag for scientific facts ? At the time the regulation was issued, it had been studied for 25 YEARS - and conclusively determined to be a risk for over 15. What made the regulation so controversial was NOT the science, it was the cost to comply.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, March 30, 2009 8:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"... the timeline you are trying to claim superiority in indicates pre-1997 ..."

You MUST be Rap - you have just as many problems with dates, numbers and facts as he does.

All of my cites were from Bush-43 era.

One does not use one carefully selected study, or two, to draw scientific conclusions (something you are neither unbiased nor educated enough to do) - one uses many studies only if they include liberal-approved results. And the LIBERAL conclusion is that abortion is not a breast cancer risk.

Also, this little linky http://www.nature.com/bjc/6600124a.pdf doesn't work, I presume much like your own little linky.

Thanks for pointing out the link failure, fixed it here and in my earlier post. Had checked it a few times, must have not that time.

BYTEMITE

Monday, March 30, 2009 2:31 PM

Um... Actually, as far as I'm aware, partial birth abortion refers either to extraction and dilation or saline abortion. Both I'll readily admit are pretty horrific ways to destroy a fetus, but in both cases, the actual killing of the fetus occurs while it's inside the mother. And partial borth abortions are performed after 21 weeks of pregnancy (about 5-6 months, or the end of the second trimestre).

I mean, I guess you COULD theoretically perform a partial birth abortion on a 9 month fully gestated fetus. But setting aside for a moment all the moral issues that are very real with PBAs for the purely practical: why wait that long if you could perform the proceedure earlier? Most PBAs are NOT performed on fully gestated fetuses. I'll also add, there's a difference between partial birth abortions and late-term abortions. Partial birth abortions are only a type of late term abortion.

However, and the reason I don't support partial birth abortions in general: by the end of the second trimestre, a pre-maturely birthed fetus, with modern medical technology, could still survive.

I take the deadline back to fourth months, because at four months there's so much that could happen, and I've heard 1/3 of all pregnancies are lost by the third month anyway (most times, the mothers aren't even aware of them). So at 3-4 months, I think there's real question whether a fetus will ultimately complete it's development, and I'm willing to respect any choice a woman makes during that time period.

75% of women, according to the late-term abortion article on wikipedia, didn't REALIZE they were 6 months pregnant. I'm sorry, that's ridiculous, these women missed the boat in more ways than one. That's not a good reason to have a PBA. I'm willing to make some exceptions, like if it would endanger the mother's health, or the fetus had complications and is already dead. Jury's still out for me on teenagers and women being forced to have children. Yeah, I don't want to see their lives ruined, and I can understand how there's a women's empowerment and rights issue here, but for the 1.4% of abortions that are late term, what's wrong with putting the babies up for adoption? There's never a shortage of parents looking to adopt babies because they don't want to miss any of the development years, babies are more likely to be adopted than any other age.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, March 30, 2009 2:59 PM

Byte, part of that is certain mandatory delays in the process set up as roadblocks by the very folk who then decry women having the procedure that late.

As for plenty of parents willing to adopt - having gone round and round with MARE over it and getting nowhere thanks in great part due to being of an "unapproved" theology, and having less than six digits of income, there's a lot more stumbling blocks both official and unofficial than folks who've never tried to run that gauntlet realize.

And yes, that is something of a sore spot with me, cause having had that experience, which contributed to the destruction of a very long relationship, in combination with experience dealing with the places many of these kids wind up when they're not adopted.

If there's a hell, it's not in someones afterlife, but right here, in those places.

And yes, they *DID* demand to know my religious beliefs, and the moment they realized I wasn't a "god-fearin christian" it was pretty solidly indicated that I was wasting my time.
I'm still quite POed about that, mind you.

Honestly I think most folk are coming at this from the wrong end.

Yes, it's a horrible thing often with deep psychological consequences, but instead of focusing on this end, we really should be focusing on the other and preventing matters from coming to that pass in the first place with actual education beyond a 40 minute video tape saying in essence "This is sex, it's bad, don't do it" - ridiculous shit like abstinence only programs and denying basic human needs and desires to begin with much less how to redirect or mitigate them...

And actual education involving, and real access to, proper protection and birth control without deliberate discouragement for religious or political reasons by the very folk who then decry the inevitable end result of that very stupidity.

We ought to be building statues of the Trojan Man as a national hero, not only for the lives and health saved by using proper protection, but for those that never came to need an unfortunate and early end because of the product he endorses.

Then again, when have good sense and public policy ever been in the same ballpark, much less seated in the same section...

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

BYTEMITE

Monday, March 30, 2009 3:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Byte, part of that is certain mandatory delays in the process set up as roadblocks by the very folk who then decry women having the procedure that late.

I can see that, I mean, even if we're not speaking of the sometimes violent pressures of the pro-life movement at large, or the efforts of some denominations I won't name, or some of the feminist backlash... Sometimes the family of a woman or the father of the unborn fetus will try to force a choice. That is definitely a place where the debate gets murky, and that's why I said above that I'm less certain about where exactly my perspective falls for those.

Quote:
As for plenty of parents willing to adopt - having gone round and round with MARE over it and getting nowhere thanks in great part due to being of an "unapproved" theology, and having less than six digits of income, there's a lot more stumbling blocks both official and unofficial than folks who've never tried to run that gauntlet realize.

And yes, that is something of a sore spot with me, cause having had that experience, which contributed to the destruction of a very long relationship, in combination with experience dealing with the places many of these kids wind up when they're not adopted.

If there's a hell, it's not in someones afterlife, but right here, in those places.

And yes, they *DID* demand to know my religious beliefs, and the moment they realized I wasn't a "god-fearin christian" it was pretty solidly indicated that I was wasting my time.
I'm still quite POed about that, mind you.

Hmm, I wonder if that's an example or restrictions intended to protect children that harm, or an example of class struggle. Aristocracies restricting progeny potential in the other classes is a well-documented and historically abused method of control.

Perhaps it's about time for a reform of the adoption system, and maybe then we can get serious about laying down the rules for abortions.

Quote:
Honestly I think most folk are coming at this from the wrong end.

Yes, it's a horrible thing often with deep psychological consequences, but instead of focusing on this end, we really should be focusing on the other and preventing matters from coming to that pass in the first place with actual education beyond a 40 minute video tape saying in essence "This is sex, it's bad, don't do it" - ridiculous shit like abstinence only programs and denying basic human needs and desires to begin with much less how to redirect or mitigate them...

And actual education involving, and real access to, proper protection and birth control without deliberate discouragement for religious or political reasons by the very folk who then decry the inevitable end result of that very stupidity.

We ought to be building statues of the Trojan Man as a national hero, not only for the lives and health saved by using proper protection, but for those that never came to need an unfortunate and early end because of the product he endorses.

Then again, when have good sense and public policy ever been in the same ballpark, much less seated in the same section...

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

Absolutely. The issue was really exposed, I think, in the last presidential campaign... It's just too bad that so many people see teen mother's carrying their pregnancies full term as a triumph, instead of a tragedy that the girls got pregnant at all.

ANTHONYT

Monday, March 30, 2009 4:45 PM

Hello,

I continue to be dismayed that some people on this board argue their points like adolescents.

In a most recent outrage, someone has illicitly re-titled this thread's appearance on the thread listing.

For the sake of decency and mature debate, please cease and desist these dishonest schoolyard games.

--Anthony

P.S. I am trying now to reverse the process and restore the thread title.

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I continue to be dismayed that some people on this board argue their points like adolescents.

In a most recent outrage, someone has illicitly re-titled this thread's appearance on the thread listing.

For the sake of decency and mature debate, please cease and desist these dishonest schoolyard games.

--Anthony

P.S. I am trying now to reverse the process and restore the thread title.

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

This has been a very common occurance here in liberal troll country.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:50 AM

I am sorry, I had forgotten that the PBA Ban had been upheld by the Court in 2007. Largely due to the continued claims by liberals that it is needed.
This is only U. S. Law that Bans it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Um... Actually, as far as I'm aware, partial birth abortion refers either to extraction and dilation or saline abortion. Both I'll readily admit are pretty horrific ways to destroy a fetus, but in both cases, the actual killing of the fetus occurs while it's inside the mother. And partial borth abortions are performed after 21 weeks of pregnancy (about 5-6 months, or the end of the second trimestre).

Partial Birth Abortions were defined, and normally used the Intact Dilation and Extraction procedure. After 9 months gestation, the dilation was performed, then the doctor went in and rotated the living, viable fetus for breach aspect (Rotation), and then the breach birth was performed (through the cervix, along the birth canal), until the head was almost out of the birth canaln (Extraction). While the head was held against the birthcanal (smothering the mouth and nose to prevent a breath from occuring before infanticide was completed), the back of the head was punctured and then a vaccuum tube was inserted, to vacuum out the brain (Evacuation). After the brain was vacuumed, the now dead fetus is extracted the remainder of the way.

It is defined in Law:
An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until,... in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531)

That is the definition. Liberals have constantly and fallaciously misdescribed it to obfuscate the fact it is infancticide, like by claiming the fetus is killed in the uterus or womb, or other garbage.
No need to be dishonest when defending the murder of innocent babies - just state how you think the murder should occur and leave the defined PBA as is.

You can look up widipedia under Intact dilation and extraction and Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act if that helps.

The PBA Ban clarifies that the only kind of fetus affected by the ban is living fetuses, and that is the aspect that the liberals fought so hard against, so they could continue to kill viable babies without interference. The Ban does not involve fetuses which are dead, or abortions in the uterus, so no need to obfuscate the issue by misdirective ploys in those areas.
The killing of babies is what reasonable people have objected to, and the liberals campaigned for.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 1:44 PM

Yeah, actually, wikipedia WAS the resource I used for that. It's horrible stuff, I'm not disagreeing with you on that account, and I even agree it's infanticide.

The point of my post was the 9 month thing. Like I said, you could DO the proceedure at 9 months, but it can be and generally is performed earlier, at 5 to 6 months.

I suppose that's probably a bit quibblesome, because with our medical technology, the fetuses are viable at 5-6 months. So there's not a whole bunch of difference, consequentially, between 5-6 months and 9 months. Just thought I'd put the information up there for people's easy reference.

YINYANG

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 1:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Yeah, I don't want to see their lives ruined, and I can understand how there's a women's empowerment and rights issue here, but for the 1.4% of abortions that are late term, what's wrong with putting the babies up for adoption? There's never a shortage of parents looking to adopt babies because they don't want to miss any of the development years, babies are more likely to be adopted than any other age.

Adoption ain't exactly a walk in the park, for the birth mother or the kid:

http://tinyurl.com/adoptionnotaseasyasthought
http://tinyurl.com/adoptionandloss

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 2:31 PM

That's kinda more a "why they don't do it" and "what the emotional consequences of adoption are," than "why they shouldn't do it," isn't it?

Not to diminish the difficulty of adoption, both as a choice and as a process, or to say that the adoption system doesn't need to be fixing...

But I don't really hold that the difficulties posed by adoption is an acceptable, ethical reason to opt for late term abortions as an alternative.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:01 PM

Thank you VERY much for those links, YingYang - it's a story I've heard too many times from the people I help, but seems to fall upon deaf ears when addressed to the rest of society, and Shaker Anonymous really brought it home with a vengance.

You know, I'd marry that girl - I can offer no higher compliment than that.

-Frem

YINYANG

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
75% of women, according to the late-term abortion article on wikipedia, didn't REALIZE they were 6 months pregnant. I'm sorry, that's ridiculous, these women missed the boat in more ways than one.

1) Citation, please. I know you said it was on Wikipedia, but I couldn't find it, and even if I could Wikipedia is not a good authority all on its own.

2) So, because people are ignorant, that's a good reason to violate their bodily sovereignty? "If you'd just been smarter, you wouldn't have had to been forced to carry this baby to term. Too bad."

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:12 PM

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

It was 71%, sorry.

And I confess I'm also confused about how the study referenced calculated it's percentages, seeing as they add up to well over one-hundred. Still, my point was, that's the most common response they received.

I don't mean to cause outrage or personal offense when I express astonishment when some women don't realize they're more than six months pregnant. I find that kind of hard to fathom, having never been pregnant and considering that I don't plan on it. Are the signs easy to miss? Is it a result of the failings of abstinence education? Is it a result of a "won't happen to me" sense of confidence? Do these women have a pre-existing condition that masks the pregnancy? How can this be explained?

I'm not saying I support turning women into unwilling breeding factories, and that quotation is not something I ever said either. I'm SAYING that there has to be a better way than this. I'm saying that I think there are alternatives to late-term abortion, like establishing reproductive education that works, so that women and girls can go and get themselves a safer abortion during the earlier months, and their families/the father don't go apeshit.

I'm very fuzzy about late-term abortions. I don't like them, because the fetus is viable. I think that people are killing viable fetuses. I think the impacts on the women who have to face these tough choices, abortion or adoption or keeping the baby, are in a lamentable spot because their quality of life is going to be impacted no matter what. I don't know WHAT is right in that situation, because it's bad all around. I don't know whether I can advocate late-term abortions, so I'm advocating the alternatives.

I did come off rather strong in my previous post, I admit. Like I'm judging the women who get these proceedures. I really don't intend to judge. To be honest, if it weren't for the ethics of the fetus thing, I wouldn't care. Children have never really been high on my list of interests, one of the many reasons I plan never to become a mother. I don't consider those women murderers, and if they want to get a late term abortion, it's not like I can stop them, or really am overly motivated to try. They'd get them anyway, and in less safe manners.

I just wish things were different, that's all.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:59 AM

Hello,

I think that women who are six months pregnant and don’t realize it fall into two categories:

A) Have other medical issues that mask the pregnancy

Or

B) Have a psychological aversion to recognizing their condition.

Mind you, I am not a Doctor.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

YINYANG

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 4:35 AM

I didn't mean to say that you were arguing that "stupid people don't have bodily autonomy;" that was hyperbole. It's just, for me, while a discussion on viability and "where does life begin," etc. is interesting, it's not particularly relevant to my stance on abortion. One of the things I see is the "pro-lifers" (I use that term loosely, because I don't think that the other side is "anti-lifers") tend to over-focus on what's inside the womb, and disappear the woman whose womb it is, which says to me that they don't really give a shit about women's rights. So I tend to drive a really hard line where I give women the benefit of the doubt, because most people I've seen who argue against abortions hardly ever.

Moving on...

The thing about the stats on the Wikipedia article are:

1) It's from 1987.

2) "Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks." So it's not really fair to categorize them all as six months pregnant plus.

3) Perhaps another reason why they didn't know they were pregnant was lack of adequate health care? If they didn't suspect they were pregnant, just sick, and decided to tough it out, they could be well into the second term before they really figure things out. I think this sort of thing might be more prevalent among lower-income women, who don't have good health care (if they have any at all) and sometimes can't afford to miss work even if they did.

4) From the original study, which only loads on my computer from the cache*:

Quote:
Most respondents to a survey of abortion patients in 1987 said that more than one factor had contributed to their decision to have an abortion; the mean number of reasons was nearly four.

...

Of women who had an abortion at 16 or more weeks' gestation, 71% attributed their delay to not having realized they were pregnant or not having known soon enough the actual gestation of their pregnancy. Almost half were delayed because of trouble in arranging the abortion, usually because they needed time to raise money. One-third did not have an abortion earlier because they were afraid to tell their partner or their parents that they were pregnant.

...

TABLE 4. Percentage of women who reported that various reasons contributed to their having a late abortion and who cited specific reasons as accounting for the longest delay

Longest
All delay
(399) (311) Reason

71% 31% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation

So it's not as simple as "they didn't realize they were that pregnant." It's the most common response, yes, but it doesn't paint the complete picture.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I just wish things were different, that's all.

If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.

---

* http://tinyurl.com/71percentabortioncache

Edited to fix the formatting. Gorram forward slash.

Edited to clarify.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 4:53 AM

I didn't notice the date, so that's a good point, generally you want an article that's been published recently for the most up to date information. Though... Has something changed since 1987 that renders the results no longer applicable?

16 weeks is 4 months... I wonder why they included 4 months? I don't think that's what most people would classify late term.

Lower income women are probably also a group that might not know about abortion options, and are also a group likely to become pregnant. Could be.

It... still seems strange to me. Even if you don't have access to very good education, most of these girls/women have to have mothers themselves who have explained how things work somewhat.

As for women who misjudged gestation, I suppose those are most likely to be women in steady relationships, making the exact date of conception difficult to pinpoint. Might be something about not wanting to believe they're pregnant, too.

Anyway, glad we could talk this out. I've heard debates specifically on abortion are something people around here tend to avoid because of how volatile they can get.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 10:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I didn't notice the date, so that's a good point, generally you want an article that's been published recently for the most up to date information. Though... Has something changed since 1987 that renders the results no longer applicable?

morales are much, much looser in the decades since. Much more lax attitude towards infanticide.

Quote:

16 weeks is 4 months... I wonder why they included 4 months? I don't think that's what most people would classify late term.

Lower income women are probably also a group that might not know about abortion options, and are also a group likely to become pregnant. Could be.

It... still seems strange to me. Even if you don't have access to very good education, most of these girls/women have to have mothers themselves who have explained how things work somewhat.

As for women who misjudged gestation, I suppose those are most likely to be women in steady relationships, making the exact date of conception difficult to pinpoint. Might be something about not wanting to believe they're pregnant, too.

Anyway, glad we could talk this out. I've heard debates specifically on abortion are something people around here tend to avoid because of how volatile they can get.

YINYANG

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I didn't notice the date, so that's a good point, generally you want an article that's been published recently for the most up to date information. Though... Has something changed since 1987 that renders the results no longer applicable?

morales are much, much looser in the decades since. Much more lax attitude towards infanticide.

Spelling and grammar rules have become much, much looser in the decades since. Much more lax attitudes toward language-icide.

Edited to preserve context.

YINYANG

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 11:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I didn't notice the date, so that's a good point, generally you want an article that's been published recently for the most up to date information. Though... Has something changed since 1987 that renders the results no longer applicable?

Vast swaths of U.S. culture. It might even be easier to ask what hasn't changed than think of all the ways it has. And sure, we could postulate that we would see similar trends in responses, if not similar answers, but there's no way to know if we're right until we do the work/find the data ourselves. To assume that the data is still applicable 20+ years later would be erroneous.

Edited to clarify

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:46 PM

It's true. Normally in sociology, I'd look for a more recent study, as the data can be trusted more and they're more relevant. I guess I'd just always thought that for family and personal-life related issues, people's motivations for their behaviour stay the same more than they change.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Spelling and grammar rules have become much, much looser in the decades since. Much more lax attitudes toward language-icide.

Edited to preserve context.

Don't encourage the sock puppets please.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:25 PM

Quote:
most of these girls/women have to have mothers themselves who have explained how things work somewhat.

I wouldn't bet that.

I had to have *that* conversation with the nieces, because no one else would dare or bother, and they were 15 and 17 at the freakin time - and went to the same school I did, whos ENTIRE sex ed was a single 40 minute VHS tape of essentially "This is sex, it's bad, don't do it."

I became interested in self-education regarding the topic in my day when several classmates wound up with STDs or unwanted pregnancies - and in order TO do so, since all the material regarding it was restricted and officially unavailabe to me, had to resort to chicanery if not outright theft to obtain it.

I'm sure the internet is perhaps a little more helpful in this regard now, but just because we're awash in information does not automatically render any of it true, and the guidance of an adult to sort the facts from the myths and often deliberately sponsored fictions by people with an agenda is still every bit as valuable now as it was then.

They were actually a bit shocked to have an adult level with them and discuss the topic honestly without regarding it as something sinful, immoral or dirty - when you make people feel shame for having actual human interests and desires, you're just BEGGING to mentally screw them up.

-Frem

PS. That's where the Jedi went wrong, imho, and for that they deserved every bit of what they got.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:31 PM

But Frem, sex is *bad*. If it wasn't, I wouldn't enjoy it as much....

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Spelling and grammar rules have become much, much looser in the decades since. Much more lax attitudes toward language-icide.

Edited to preserve context.

Don't encourage the sock puppets please.

And may I propose that we henceforth call it "linguicide"? It flows better, and follows the grammatical conventions a bit more closely that way.

Mike

just lying smiling in the dark
shooting stars around your heart
dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple everytime
now you're crying in your sleep
i wish you'd never learnt to weep
don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple everytime

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:46 PM

I was referring more to the "How to know if you're pregnant" part of the talk, but maybe that gets skipped over too.

RUE

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 3:08 PM

"Though... Has something changed since 1987 that renders the results no longer applicable?"

Home pregnancy kits ?

Fast, accurate, reliable pregnancy tests that can be done in the doctor's office at the time of the visit ?

DUH !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 4:47 PM

Those weren't around in 1987?

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 7:20 PM

"...the first home test kit for hCG was released in the mid-1970s."

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

So... not so "duh."

RUE

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 8:06 PM

AH ! I was HOPING someone would ask.

Back then, the home test was insensitive (one had to wait a minimum of two weeks after the first missed period), lengthy (hours rather than minutes), fraught with potential for error (a small amount of vibration like from a refrigerator could produce a negative result), difficult to interpret (many instances of results that were not clear-cut), and subject to a large negative error (only 85% accurate under IDEAL conditions in a non-pregnant result).* In addition, test results needed to be confirmed in a doctor's office (or hospital or clinic). Those 'official' tests were blood-based tests that needed to be sent to a laboratory, turnaround for the results was up to two weeks. It required a revisit to the doctor (or hospital or clinic) to get the results. The doctor (or hospital or clinic) would then do a pelvic exam to determine fetal size, therefore, approximate fetal age and date of conception.

Given that one or more missed periods is a common event, and that early pregnancy swelling may not be detectable, 'quickening' - the feeling of fetal movement which may start around g 4 months - may be the first and only distinct indication of pregnancy a woman has absent diagnostic confirmation.

* The test was based on red cells that had been coated with antibodies to HCG the 'pregnancy' hormone (the beta unit, to be specific). It was used to test urine.

During pregnancy, HCG is produced, and then lost with urine. So the first question is - how sensitive is the test ? At the time the test was relatively insensitive, in order to have a measurable amount of HCG, one had to wait at least 2 weeks after the first missed period (or, roughly, for the fetus to be one month old, or more).

Generally the highest urine HCG levels are early morning levels when the urine is most concentrated. So, the woman needed to collect the first urine of the day. Secondly, it needed to be a fresh specimen, as saved, even refrigerated urine might have produced a false negative result. So the woman needed to run the test that very morning.

If the woman had HCG in her urine, the HCG antibodies on the red blood cells would cross-link to the HCG and to other red blood cells. These cross-linked red cells settled differently than cells which were not cross-linked. Since it depended on red cells slowly settling out under gravity, the test took 2 hours - a lengthy amount of time compared to today.

As these matrixes of red cells were fragile, even a small amount of vibration could break them apart - for example, picking up the test stand and carefully setting it down again, or placing it on a counter next to a refrigerator, or on the toilet tank top and then flushing the toilet.

Finally, there were many instances where the cells settled in such a way that it looked neither positive nor negative. (I tried to find photos on google but I couldn't).

Suffice to say that the tests had a bad reputation among women as being expensive, time consuming and, worst of all - unreliable.

In actual practice, they were barely above chance at detecting pregnancy.

So, while these tests existed, they were not a useful tool for detecting pregnancy.

***************************************************************

And yes, it is a DUH !

Only an ignorant person - like ahem ! you - would go forward with such an uninformed opnion.

RUE

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 8:32 PM

I wanted to add that the tests have moved forward with technology.

One BIG step forward was the use of monoclonal antibodies - and those are a very modern invention indeed. Their use improved sensitivity and reduced both the positive and negative errors at earlier and earlier stages of pregnancy.

The use of different indicators - not sheep red blood cells settling in a test tube - also improved the usability and reliability of these tests.

A lot more information into the reliability of these tests has improved the knowledge of whether these tests are being used appropriately, and how and when they fail (and ALL tests fail at some point.)

These tests are now being used as primary tests in doctors' offices, resulting in faster confirmation.

The use of ultrasound rather than manual exam provides for more accurate determination of g fetal age.

AND - both the chemistry improvements and clinical improvements have led to cross-improvements between them.

The situation today is FAR different from the one 20 or more years ago.

Finally - thanks to home pregnancy tests paving the way, different home test kits have been developed for other concerns.

***************************************************************

ETA - biological measurement isn't magic. It's based on particular and sometimes peculiar techniques and materials, with their own strengths and shortcomings. Breaking it down into its details makes it, I hope, more concrete and understandable, and not quite so 'out there' esoteric.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 9:31 PM

Which opinion, that Home Pregnancy Tests were available in the 1970's (if inaccurate, thank you for explaining), my opinion on abortion, or my question about what has changed in the field to render the results of that study inaccurate?

Or all of the above?

Remember that thing I said about never planning to get pregnant? I've never claimed to be an expert on this issue. I do seem to be less informed, as you seem to be more familiar with uncommon knowledge.

EDIT: this was in response to the post before your last. Breaking down the information, as you have, has been very helpful for me to understand how the situation at least for detecting pregnancy and determining how far along the pregnancy is has changed.

RUE

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 9:45 PM

"my question about what has changed in the field to render the results of that study inaccurate"

That part.

"Breaking down the information, as you have, has been very helpful ..."

Chemistry, biology, medicine, measurement - my arena for many decades. I'm glad I could impart a little history.

And I really, really want people to understand that this is not magic. Mostly, it's someone's time consuming work to find the picky set of details, the specific materials and the right techniques to make these measurements happen. Sheep red blood cells ? Could it GET any stranger and, at the same time, more mundane ? But there it is.

I want to encourage people to look behind the curtain. You'll find real stuff there.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 11:13 PM

When are folks going to grow the hell up?

RUE

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 11:36 PM

So, since I haven't seen anything that convinces me to the contrary, what I take from here is this:

There are three kinds of stem cells
adult
embryonic
embryonized (DNA modified).

Adult stem cells can fuse with other cells to help them along but cannot become those other cells and replace them. Sources of adult stem cells are limited by the amount of tissue you can remove and the type of tissue you are trying to help. (It makes little sense to remove most of a brain to try and find a few cells to treat Parkinson's for example. Or to remove most of a heart to try and find cells to treat the Purkinje fibers.)

Embryonic stem cells have the potential to become the cells you need them to be. Due to a lack of large-scale research however, their limitations and potentials are unexplored. Their sources are IVF clinics. They are taken from fertilized eggs at a very early stage of development - before any differentiation has taken place.

Embryonized stem cells are a total unknown. They are created by adding 4 genes to adult cells to cause them to behave differently.

Making federal money available for embryonic stem cell research does not mandate research, nor does it mean money will be spent on the research.

In general, federal spending on 'blue sky' research adds information, and in turn technologies, that would not generally be done by private profit-maximizing industry (Bell Labs and IBM excepted).

Is this a fair summary so far ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2