• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama To Alter Abortion Policy

"I don't want--what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible. from the banking business, the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to the healthcare--I do not want the government in charge of all these things. I don't want this to work!...I hope he fails."

And there we have it. Rush thinks Obama's policies constitute a deliberate and intentional nationalization of private institutions/business by the government. Rush wants Obama to fail in that respect.

What is illegitimate about opposing the nationalization of large sectors of the private economy?
 
"I don't want--what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible. from the banking business, the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to the healthcare--I do not want the government in charge of all these things. I don't want this to work!...I hope he fails."

Yes and we know that he and other conservatives disagree with Obama's policies. We got the memo during the election. The point is that we are having an economic crisis right now and we should give him our support because we are kind of relying on him to help get us out of this mess. And his policies and politics are tied to how he's going to fix the economy. Like I said, it's one thing to disagree with his politics and policies. But to say that you hope he fails is basically saying that you don't give a rat's ass about the economic crisis and how it affects us all. That's what I take issue with. You can try to spin this however you want, but the man said he hopes Obama fails.
 
I will never understand some of you people.

I'm building up an embryonic stem cell as something more important? What about the embryonic stem cell research advocates that keep telling us how much more promising embryonic stem cells are relative to non-embryonic stem cells in deriving medical treatments and cures? There is absolutely nothing whatsoever to back up such rhetoric despite decades of ESCR being conducted.

Talk about building something up without being able to back it up... :roll:
So why ban it then? If the merits of the research fail then why would people spend money on it? <Sarcasm>Oh yea, its all a conspiracy to kill babies and steal money! :roll:</sarcasm> So what is your thinking on why its so important to ban research funding for it, moral issues aside?

It is indisputable that an embryo ain't simply a cell, but a collection of cells with one purpose - human life.
Yea? And? Is an acorn an oak tree? Is a sperm and an egg a human? Are the molecules that will make up a sperm and an egg a human? You've setup an infinite regress yet for no logical reason you choose conception as a special point in the infinite regress. Why is that? Why is conception more important than a egg or sperm or the molecules that will make eggs and sperm and so on into infinity?

An embryo does not exist for any other reason than to become a human life. Hence, destroying that embryo simply for research necessarily means that you're creating life simply to destroy it.
see above.

Some people have legitimate ethical and moral problems with this, including stem cell research scientists. This is even more grievous when we have developed alternative ESCR techniques that do not require destroying embryoes, such as blodd cord stem cells and cell reprogramming that takes a non-embryonic stem cell and it transformed into a cell that behaves just like an embryonic stem cell.
great. Others do not agree based on equal if not greater reasoning.

What is emtional here are these empty appeals to research that has yielded no actual medical treatment. It's all a promise to heal and stop the suffering of individuals afflicted by some injury or disease.
Only if one chooses to ignore the fact that attempting to cure disease is a a virtuous endeavor in and of itself.

You people have nothing more than sticking your headin the sand to ignore legit ethical and moral considerations in your emotionally wicked need to destroy human life in pursuit of a decades-long promise that has achieved no medical treatments.
True, IFF one is to believe your view on abortion. I've yet to see why such a view is compelling.
 
Yes and we know that he and other conservatives disagree with Obama's policies. We got the memo during the election. The point is that we are having an economic crisis right now and we should give him our support because we are kind of relying on him to help get us out of this mess. And his policies and politics are tied to how he's going to fix the economy. Like I said, it's one thing to disagree with his politics and policies. But to say that you hope he fails is basically saying that you don't give a rat's ass about the economic crisis and how it affects us all. That's what I take issue with. You can try to spin this however you want, but the man said he hopes Obama fails.

when I have already heard about what he plans to do w/ abortion and gun control, I hope he fails too. I think his policies--social, economic and otherwise--if he succeeds, will be extremely harmful to the country. maybe he won't have enough time or influence to make all the changes he's been talking about.
 
Oh my goodness...

Bush only imposed fed funding restrictions on ESCR, not stem cell research.

And I cannot believe that you're arguing that "you can't do as much with non-embryonic stem cells." And I cannot believe someone thanked you for arguing as such. Despite your false assertion that we cannot do much with non-embryonic stem cells we have seen nearly a hundred medical treatments derived from non-embryonic stem cells. How many from embryonic stem cells? Well? What? Zero? Your argument is garbage and it is ignorant.

Obama's reversal of Bush's restrictions does not "opening up of ALL embryonic stem cell lines." It simply means that federal funding may be used to fund embryonic stem cell lines that were created after 2001 when Bush imposed the restriction. Meanwhile, in the real world, new embryonic stem cell lines have been created all over the US and the world.

Please don't pretend that the restrictions on fed funding of ESCR caused ESCR to stop. During this time Cali has fronted several billion public dollars while other states have also promised public subsidies for ESCR, multiple private/public financing ventures involving Harvard and Stanford have arisen, and there are dozens of private firms conducting ESCR.

Obama's policy reversal only affects the expenditure of federal dollars.

My God, what cherrypicking!! Embryonic stem cells ARE stem cells. I said restrictions on stem cells. You say I said something different because embryonic stem cells are NOT stem cells. In essence, you are attempting to use some preztel logic to claim I said something I didn't say.

Embryonic stem cells ARE a subset of stem cells, so my argument holds. Bush restricted Federal dollars to stem cell research. Duhhhhhh!!

Damn, I have seen some weird pretzel logic arguments in my years at DP, but you have just taken the cake.
 
Last edited:
Yes and we know that he and other conservatives disagree with Obama's policies. We got the memo during the election. The point is that we are having an economic crisis right now and we should give him our support because we are kind of relying on him to help get us out of this mess.
If we were to support Obama during this crisis like the left supported Bush after 9-11, we'd be arguing that Obama was part of a plot to cause the current crisis.

And his policies and politics are tied to how he's going to fix the economy. Like I said, it's one thing to disagree with his politics and policies. But to say that you hope he fails is basically saying that you don't give a rat's ass about the economic crisis and how it affects us all.
Not necessarily so. Its perfectly legitimate to argue that the policies he wants to put in place will cause more long-term harm that the current recession. Thus, there is nothing inherently wrong with hoping that Obama fails.
 
when I have already heard about what he plans to do w/ abortion and gun control, I hope he fails too. I think his policies--social, economic and otherwise--if he succeeds, will be extremely harmful to the country. maybe he won't have enough time or influence to make all the changes he's been talking about.

Well, considering the shape our country is in, I don't think we can afford fail.
 
Well, considering the shape our country is in, I don't think we can afford fail.

considering the shape our country is in, I think fail is our only hope. I don't want him to have a terrible presidency marked by disaster and trauma, but for the sake of the country I hope he doesn't succeed in doing what he says he will.
 
If we were to support Obama during this crisis like the left supported Bush after 9-11, we'd be arguing that Obama was part of a plot to cause the current crisis.

Oh, bull****. Right after 9/11 people threw their support behind Bush. His approval ratings went through the roof. Only later on did some moronic people pull the whole "Bush is behind 9/11" crap.

Not necessarily so. Its perfectly legitimate to argue that the policies he wants to put in place will cause more long-term harm that the current recession. Thus, there is nothing inherently wrong with hoping that Obama fails.

Well, considering the fact that he's the President and that the hopes of our country improving kind of rests on his shoulders I disagree with your assertion.
 
considering the shape our country is in, I think fail is our only hope. I don't want him to have a terrible presidency marked by disaster and trauma, but for the sake of the country I hope he doesn't succeed in doing what he says he will.

Fail is our only hope?
Yeah, that makes sense. :roll:

Anything for partisan politics, right?
 
So why ban it then? If the merits of the research fail then why would people spend money on it? <Sarcasm>Oh yea, its all a conspiracy to kill babies and steal money! :roll:</sarcasm> So what is your thinking on why its so important to ban research funding for it, moral issues aside?

I don't think it should be banned. Wanna address my actual arguments?

For the umpteenth time in this thread...I do think our fed tax dollars shouldn't be subsidizing ESCR research given the legitimate and real ethical and moral problems associated with it and given that there is substantial state-level ESCR funding as well as public and private partnership financing out there as well as substantial private dollars funding ESCR and given that there are finite fed resources that would be better directed at research that has actually resulted in nearly a hundred medical treatments (that would be adult stem cells) and given that alternatives to destroying embryoes to harvest embryonic stem cells exist.

It's not like I have not provided these reasons before...

Yea? And? Is an acorn an oak tree? Is a sperm and an egg a human? Are the molecules that will make up a sperm and an egg a human? You've setup an infinite regress yet for no logical reason you choose conception as a special point in the infinite regress. Why is that? Why is conception more important than a egg or sperm or the molecules that will make eggs and sperm and so on into infinity?[/quote]

I chose conception as what? Please address actual arguments.

great. Others do not agree based on equal if not greater reasoning.

Yeah, opinions are like a-holes, we all have one.

Only if one chooses to ignore the fact that attempting to cure disease is a a virtuous endeavor in and of itself.

Yeah, so lets start medical experimentation on death row inmates and defective children...

I don't disagree that conducting research to cure disease is a virtuous endeavor. The fact is, though, that you're ignoring that this virtuosity (a word?) doesn't justify any and all medical research. That much you have to acknowledge, no?

True, IFF one is to believe your view on abortion. I've yet to see why such a view is compelling.

I wasn't talking about abortion.
 
Oh, bull****. Right after 9/11 people threw their support behind Bush.
Most people. Not all. Do you deny that there were those that openly claimed that Bush knew about/caused/allowed 9-11?

Well, considering the fact that he's the President and that the hopes of our country improving kind of rests on his shoulders I disagree with your assertion.
You disagree becauyse you like his policies, and do not believe that they will cause more long-0term harm than the current receesion. That's fine, but dont pretend that hoping that he isnt successful in implementing his policies because you DO believe that his policies will cause more harm isn't legitimate.
 
Fail is our only hope?
Yeah, that makes sense. :roll:

Anything for partisan politics, right?

actually his warnings in the past couple of months have given me significant hope that he doesn't actually mean to do much of anything. everything is suddenly going to take a long time and things are going to get worse before they get better...that I can deal with.
 
Most people. Not all. Do you deny that there were those that openly claimed that Bush knew about/caused/allowed 9-11?

No, I don't deny that. However, right after 9/11 I don't remember people saying that. I didn't hear a thing about that until quite a bit later. Even so, what difference does it make? There are always going to be a minority of extremist idiots who have some whacked out theory.

You disagree becauyse you like his policies, and do not believe that they will cause more long-0term harm than the current receesion. That's fine, but dont pretend that hoping that he isnt successful in implementing his policies because you DO believe that his policies will cause more harm isn't legitimate.

I don't necessarily like his policies, but I will say that things will hopefully be better than they were for the last 8 years. That isn't to say that I couldn't be proven wrong. Who knows? It's hard to trust any politician, regardless of how promising he/she seems.
 
No, I don't deny that. However, right after 9/11 I don't remember people saying that. I didn't hear a thing about that until quite a bit later. Even so, what difference does it make? There are always going to be a minority of extremist idiots who have some whacked out theory.
So... you agree that the people that blamed Bush for 9-11 were wrong for doing so, given the crisis at hand.


I don't necessarily like his policies, but I will say that things will hopefully be better than they were for the last 8 years. That isn't to say that I couldn't be proven wrong. Who knows? It's hard to trust any politician, regardless of how promising he/she seems.
You missed my point.
If you believe that his policies will be worse for the contry that the recession, then there's noting wrong with hoping that he fails.
 
So... you agree that the people that blamed Bush for 9-11 were wrong for doing so, given the crisis at hand.

Of course. I still think that people that blame Bush for 9/11 are idiotic.

You missed my point.
If you believe that his policies will be worse for the contry that the recession, then there's noting wrong with hoping that he fails.

Well, I guess I'm a glass is half full kind of guy then.
 
My God, what cherrypicking!! Embryonic stem cells ARE stem cells. I said restrictions on stem cells. You say I said something different because embryonic stem cells are NOT stem cells. In essence, you are attempting to use some preztel logic to claim I said something I didn't say.

No, you see, what you are ignoring is my earlier comment yesterday that the reason I chided you was because there has been and remains an effort in the media and among politicians to distort the Bush policy regarding restricting fed funding for ESCR by generalizing that specific restriction into a ban on stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cells ARE a subset of stem cells, so my argument holds. Bush restricted Federal dollars to stem cell research. Duhhhhhh!!

Only one specific type of stem cell research. What don't you get about that?

Damn, I have seen some weird pretzel logic arguments in my years at DP, but you have just taken the cake.

I cannot reason out of you what was not even reasoned in.
 
Well, considering the shape our country is in, I don't think we can afford fail.

That, of course, must presume that only Obama's proposals can effectively address the economic problem(s).

And, of course, that presumption is wrong.
 
Of course. I still think that people that blame Bush for 9/11 are idiotic.

Well, I guess I'm a glass is half full kind of guy then.

I don't think it is a matter of optimism v. pessimism. I think it has more to do with knowledge of poli sci and history, and I guess priorities.
 
That, of course, must presume that only Obama's proposals can effectively address the economic problem(s).

And, of course, that presumption is wrong.

Well, call me crazy, but I'm holding him to his campaign promises.
 
Well, call me crazy, but I'm holding him to his campaign promises.
Amiong his supporters, there will be those that do, and those that don't.

Those that do will fall in the "leftist" camp.
Those that do not will fall in the "partisan" camp.
 
Well, call me crazy, but I'm holding him to his campaign promises.

You do realize that you're setting yourself up for permanent disappointment and frustration, right?
 
Nonsense. What you're advocating is for judicial usurptation of the democratic process.

Anyone else find it strange that when a court kills handgun ban it is the correct, Constitutional choice, but when a court supports privacy it is usurpation of the democratic process?
 
You do realize that you're setting yourself up for permanent disappointment and frustration, right?

That remains to be seen. I for one think we should give him a chance before condemning him and hoping for failure.
 
Anyone else find it strange that when a court kills handgun ban it is the correct, Constitutional choice, but when a court supports privacy it is usurpation of the democratic process?

No.

Roe and it's companion case, Doe, effectively prevent the American people from working together, through an ongoing process of peaceful and vigorous persuasion, to establish and revise the policies on abortion governing our respective states. Roe imposes on all Americans a radical regime of unrestricted abortion for any reason all the way up to viability—and, under the predominant reading of sloppy language in Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, essentially unrestricted even in the period from viability until birth.

Do you really believe that the DC gun ban case opinion effectively removed from public policy debate handgun regulation?

Of course not...your nonsense here about some supposed hypocrisy is just that...nonsense.
 
Back
Top Bottom