Why are you voting for Bush?

I understand the "unborn baby" issue what I am saying is that it seems like that is all one issue that does not affect us persoanlly, I unerstand that is a little bit selfish, but I think we should be thinking about what we are doing with the people who are alive rather than those who are unborn. Why are we making things better for ideals while our real lives suffer?

 

Sure, if unborn babies weren't actually living human beings, then abortion would be no big deal . . .

 

Even if they are actual human beings, would you actually vote on just this single issue?
Years from now will we have nuclear war and defecit and the draft, and men and women dying for a cause they don't understand, but at least there won't be abortion (just back alley abortions)?

 

The definition of a living human being is hard to assert. Is a single cell a living human being? Does that have more rights than an independent person who's live could be saved by sacrificing that single cell? If you scrape your arm you kill hundreds or thousands of living human cells. You murderer.

Human embryo's are virtually indistiguishable from those of any mammal up to 70 days after conception. The embryo has no more human charateristics than a cow embryo would.

 

Multiply that by 1.5 million/yr, and I think you'll get the idea.

Really? What evidence from your 3 years of research do you have to support this prediction?

The Iraq sanctions were far more brutal than this war, and the Duerfler (sp?) report clearly said that Saddam was planning to resume his WMD programs once they were lifted, so which of those alternatives would you prefer?

I've disputed the back alley myth on the "Abortion" thread. If you want to debate it there, that's fine.

 

Again, I've been through all this on the "Abortion" thread. Take it up there if you want to.

 

Not wrong. Therapeutic cloning is legal in 18 countries. You are right there is an attempt (spearheaded by the US and Costa Rica) to force a ban on this, but this attempt has been blocked in the UN.
Lets not confuse this with reproductive cloning which is widely banned. England, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Japan, China, and many more support therapeutic cloning and France is getting ready to legalize it too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3747734.stm

 

Your article only says that the UK supports research cloning, which I acknowledged in the post I referred you to before:

According to the proposals adopted by the European Commission, researchers could spend EU money to harvest new stem cells from frozen human embryos created before the 27 June 2002, which has been set as cut-off date.

This will undoubtedly set the stage for a showdown with the more conservative countries in Europe that oppose the work on moral grounds — a practice that is already illegal in Germany, Austria, Denmark, France, Ireland and Spain and blocked elsewhere.

While the proposal states that "the EU will not fund human embryonic stem cell research where it is forbidden," many countries like Germany don't want their tax money going to pay for such work anywhere.

Along with Sweden, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands and Britain allow for harvesting stem cells from 'spare' IVF embryos under certain conditions. Britain is the only EU member state that also allows the creation of human embryos for stem cell procurement.

Taking stem cells from embryos is illegal in countries such as Germany, France, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Austria and Portugal and blocked in many more countries. A German law passed last year allows research on stem cells only if they are imported and existed before January 1, 2002.
​

See also:

http://www.geocities.com/giantfideli/art/CellNEWS_EUs_ESC_policy.html#ban

and

http://www.ortl.org/life_in_oregon/04_09/hijacking_reagan.html

Your article also repeats this tiresome mantra that has absolutely no basis in fact:

"Stem cells from early embryos could potentially be used to provide new treatments for incurable diseases such as Alzheimer's, diabetes and Parkinson's."

See http://www.stemcellresearch.org/pr/kerry.pdf.

 

I will no longer attempt to reason with HuckFinn (what a shame to ignore someone with a screen name alluding to such an important literary work). Religious beliefs prevent him accepting that others believe differently when it comes to moral issues. How did this topic go from stem-cell research to abortion?

Embryonic stem-cell research has particularly promising possibilities. Comparing embryos that are frozen in liquid nitrogen that will never be implanted, to pregnancies inside a woman is simply ludicrous. If a frozen embryo is to be discarded (or held in limbo forever by this ridiculous logic), then there is no reason it shouldn't be made available to science if the couple wishes to make it so.

 

I realize that people have different moral beliefs, but the factual claims that many have made here about embryonic stem cell research are demonstrably false.

The topic is "Why are you voting for Bush?" Abortion certainly tops my list.

I contend that these theoretical possibilities are far outweighed by moral and even technical drawbacks.

Couples are free to donate their embryonic offspring to be used as raw material for privately funded research. Of course, they could also place them for adoption.

 

It just strikes me as odd that one of your number one voting reasons is to change laws that are already in place, for a body and child birthing you will never experience, being male, and, since you are against it, you or your wife will probably never have an abortion. But you seek to go against decisions that were already made by Republican and Democratic judges to control what a woman can do with her own body.


As far as what we might gain from stem-cells, we alredy have discovered a grand amount of things from them, why is it a leap to think we wont discover more?

How many people do you know adopt children? If these unwanted children do not get adopt they end up getting run through state systems and foster programs. They get a raw deal and become the unwanted outcasts of society, and there are tons of them now even with the laws protecting abortion.

 

thats such foolish logic..if people didnt challenge standing laws we'd still have slavery, segregation and other wrong practices in this country.

 

If anyone is curious about the delusions held by Bush supporters:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them. Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree." Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Equally large majorities of Kerry supporters hear the Bush administration expressing these views--73% say the Bush administration is saying Iraq had WMD (11% a major program) and 74% that Iraq was substantially supporting al Qaeda.

This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information extends to other realms as well. Despite an abundance of evidence--including polls conducted by Gallup International in 38 countries, and more recently by a consortium of leading newspapers in 10 major countries--only 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the US having gone to war with Iraq. Forty-two percent assume that views are evenly divided, and 26% assume that the majority approves. Among Kerry supporters, 74% assume that the majority of the world is opposed.

There is simply a disconnect from reality that fuels many people's beliefs about President Bush and his policies.

 

Oh here we go, I did not make this comment to tell him that it is foolish to challenge laws, what I said was,
"It just strikes me as odd that one of your number one voting reasons is to change laws that are already in place, for a body and child birthing you will never experience, being male, and, since you are against it, you or your wife will probably never have an abortion."

What that means Megara is that I find it odd that his number one concern in the election is a law that does not affect him directly. Abortion is on my list but certainly not the first thing I think about, especially since it is obvious that Bush has not really concerned with that during his four years. The abortion laws that are in place now are not old antiqudated laws either, the decision was made under a climate that is not that different from today, and many of the supreme court justices are the same ones who handed down the law in the first place.

Do you understand how this is different than me saying, "It is foolish to challenge laws that are already in place."?

 

why would you say this then?

"It just strikes me as odd that one of your number one voting reasons is to change laws that are already in place,"

Obviously men who are pro life believe that abortion DOES affect them directly. To say it doesnt, bcause it doesnt involve their own body is such silly logic. Would you tell a father who lost a child that it doesnt directly involve them? If someone believes abortion is wrong and murder, of course it will be a main priority to them, wouldnt it be to you?

 

First of all Bush has been concerned with it. He has succeeded in banning
thrid-trimester abortions, understadably since it is a 'viable' life form and the practice is quite brutal. Unfortunately, the legislaters and president failed to include any provision for the life threatening circumstances, mostly because this proceedure is used primary to save the life of the mother or when late-term defects of the child are discovered. So, if a woman may die due to a preganancy we can no longer abort the child to save her life. Both will often die.
Second, Bush has not yet had the opportunity to appoint a supreme court justice. One will definitely retire in the next four years, most experts beleive two will, and it is possible that the next president may appoint three justices. The court is 4 to 5 on this issue right now and Bush has repeatedly stated that he supports a conservative, pro-life agenda on the court. With Republican majorities in both houses of congress they will most likely be approved.

The chances that this election could roll back Roe v Wade are quite real and quite scary.

 

This is a load of crap, as I explained in some detail on the "Abortion" thread.

 

What's a load of crap? And I am real tired of all of your rubuttles being: "I already addressed this in another thread..."


I guess in order to get any kind of educated response from you I need to dig through all your posts in other areas of this site. Your as subversive and secretive as your candidate... LOL

 

Whether Huck agrees or not, three federal courts in three different regions of the country have ruled that the current law against so-called partial-birth abortions fails to adequately protect the health and welfare of women. Apparently there is something to this.

 

I realize that the courts are demanding a toothless ban with an elastic "health" exception. I was disputing the claim that the ban includes no exception to protect the life of the mother, which is clearly false:

`Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

`(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.

- http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/partial_birth_abortion_Ban_act_final_language.htm

I've also previously shown that the vast majority of partial birth abortions are elective in nature:

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/AMA%20News%201995%20Hern.pdf

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/AMAFitzimmons1997.pdf

and that they are never medically necessary:

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact13.html

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/Koop%20on%20partial-birth%20abortion%201996.pdf

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/amaletter.html