Obama To Alter Abortion Policy

As one of his first acts, President Obama is going to repeal the Bush rule that barred Federal money being used to counsel women on abortion services. Obama is also repealing the Bush rule against Federal money being used for stem cell research.

As far as Federal funding of stem cell research, that is a good decision. However, funding abortion services, IMHO, is wrong. Here is why:

1) As far as abortion goes, I believe it should be legal in those states which want it, and illegal in those which don't. It is up to the states themselves, and none of the Federal government's business. This is the reason that I am opposed to Roe v. Wade, just as I am opposed to any effort to federally criminalize abortion.

2) When you give Federal money for abortion counseling, you are essentially disrespecting the beliefs of those states which made abortion illegal. Yes, I am in favor of a woman's right to choose, but I would not dare to hit those who disagree with me over the head with my belief any more than I would agree with somebody hitting me over the head with a Bible and telling me I am going to hell.

3) America is not a one size fits all nation. Different areas of the country have different beliefs, and they are entitled to them. Whether a state supports or bans abortion is, frankly, none of the Federal government's business.

So, where do I stand in regard to Obama's decision today? On stem cell research, bravo. On Federal funding of abortionists, boo.

Article is here.

I am a big fan of Obama using funds for Stem Cell research. Most of the people against stem cell research are trying to protect what is basically 100,000 cells worth of a life form. I guess, according to their logic, every time I scratch my nose I commit genocide? :roll:

danarhea said:

Obama is also repealing the Bush rule against Federal money being used for stem cell research.

Click to expand...

Bush had no such rule. Bush did prevent additional fed expenditures towards embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Bush did not prevent fed funding of stem cell research generally.

1) As far as abortion goes, I believe it should be legal in those states which want it, and illegal in those which don't. It is up to the states themselves, and none of the Federal government's business. This is the reason that I am opposed to Roe v. Wade, just as I am opposed to any effort to federally criminalize abortion.

Click to expand...

I agree, but the pro-abortionists persuaded the high court to usurp the democratic process and remove from political consideration public policy related to abortion.

2) When you give Federal money for abortion counseling, you are essentially disrespecting the beliefs of those states which made abortion illegal. Yes, I am in favor of a woman's right to choose, but I would not dare to hit those who disagree with me over the head with my belief any more than I would agree with somebody hitting me over the head with a Bible and telling me I am going to hell.

Click to expand...

But states cannot determine whether it is illegal or not. They can restrict it, but not make it illegal.

3) America is not a one size fits all nation. Different areas of the country have different beliefs, and they are entitled to them. Whether a state supports or bans abortion is, frankly, none of the Federal government's business.

Click to expand...

Well, I agree with the overall point but it's rather moot given Griswold and Roe.

EgOffTib, please don't so grossly caricature the arguments of those you disagree with. You don't have to share the moral and ethical concerns or conclusions of those who oppose federally-funded ESCR or generally oppose ESCR. There are legitimate disagreements on this issue even if you seek to shout down dissent with gross caricatures of those you disagree with,

JMak said:

EgOffTib, please don't so grossly caricature the arguments of those you disagree with. You don't have to share the moral and ethical concerns or conclusions of those who oppose federally-funded ESCR or generally oppose ESCR. There are legitimate disagreements on this issue even if you seek to shout down dissent with gross caricatures of those you disagree with,

Click to expand...

I have yet to hear any, but am more than willing to let you make your case.

EgoffTib said:

I have yet to hear any, but am more than willing to let you make your case.

Click to expand...

Then you're not looking hard enough or you're simply not interested in acknowledging such arguments.

Come on, this debate has been going on for years and you're going to sit there and argue that you have not seen any legitimate arguments opposing federally-funded ESCR or ESCR more generally? Then I can onyl conclude that you simply will, by default, characterize any disagreement with you on this issue as illegitimate, i.e., that you are unwilling to acknowledge any legitimate argument.

Or are you saying that you've not ever seen an argument presented at all against fed-funded ESCR or ESCR generally?

JMak said:

Or are you saying that you've not ever seen an argument presented at all against fed-funded ESCR or ESCR generally?

Click to expand...

I have never seen one that is not based on emotion and/or "religious morals". Again, please present me with one.

JMak said:

Bush had no such rule. Bush did prevent additional fed expenditures towards embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Bush did not prevent fed funding of stem cell research generally.



I agree, but the pro-abortionists persuaded the high court to usurp the democratic process and remove from political consideration public policy related to abortion.



But states cannot determine whether it is illegal or not. They can restrict it, but not make it illegal.



Well, I agree with the overall point but it's rather moot given Griswold and Roe.

EgOffTib, please don't so grossly caricature the arguments of those you disagree with. You don't have to share the moral and ethical concerns or conclusions of those who oppose federally-funded ESCR or generally oppose ESCR. There are legitimate disagreements on this issue even if you seek to shout down dissent with gross caricatures of those you disagree with,

Click to expand...

Actually, he did, by limiting what kinds of stem cells could be used. Also, from the link I provided:

Although Obama can change some Bush policies through executive fiat, he also has the option of pushing new laws through Congress. Stem-cell research is an area where Obama is weighing the merits of each approach. In a recent interview with CNN, he said he might try to lift the stem-cell research limitations through legislation.

Click to expand...

EgoffTib said:

I have never seen one that is not based on emotion and/or "religious morals". Again, please present me with one.

Click to expand...

So, the only arguments against ESCR or fed-funded ESCR that you have seen have rested only on "emotion" or "religious morals?"

I have to ask then, is any argument that rests on a moral or ethical objection an illegitimate argument?

Here's my take on ESCR and fed-funded ESCR:

There are now alternatives to destroying embryoes in pursuing ESCR, e.g., cord blood, cell reprogramming, and, as such, we can avoid all of the ethical and moral entanglements that come with destroying embryoes for scientific research.

On fed funding, I see no problem with the President directing fed expenditures on ESCR be stopped or resumed. I don't think that federal dollars should be used to subsidize the destruction of human embryoes as such ependitures subsidize the collection of embryoes for scientific research only.

Yes, these are ethical and moral problems that I have with such research. You can disagree and argue that such problems are outweighed by the promise of such research (and it remains only a decades-long promise), but don't simply dismiss it as illegitimate.

danarhea said:

Actually, he did, by limiting what kinds of stem cells could be used. Also, from the link I provided:

Click to expand...

Embryonic stem cells. Not adult stem cells. Please try to get the terminology correct. Opponents of Bush's funding policy have deliberately mischaracterized Bush's policy as restricting stem cell research generally when, in fact, Bush's policy permitted using fed funds on existing embryonic stem cell lines and restricting fed funding on new embryonic stem cell lines.

There's are important distinctions between embryonic and non-embryonic stem cell research and the policy implications of each. The way you drafted your initial post completely blurred those distinctions.

Wish they'd quit spending my money. Guess I couldn't expect that sort of change, huh?

JMak said:

So, the only arguments against ESCR or fed-funded ESCR that you have seen have rested only on "emotion" or "religious morals?"

Click to expand...

Yes.

I have to ask then, is any argument that rests on a moral or ethical objection an illegitimate argument?

Click to expand...

Ethics and morals vary from person to person. If individuals wish to abolish ESCR, they should formulate a argument grounded in facts, not emotion or the Bible, if they wish to be taken seriously.

There are now alternatives to destroying embryoes in pursuing ESCR, e.g., cord blood, cell reprogramming, and, as such, we can avoid all of the ethical and moral entanglements that come with destroying embryoes for scientific research.

Click to expand...

There's no reason why we cannot use all of the resources we have in our quest to eliminate illness in already living beings.

Yes, these are ethical and moral problems that I have with such research. You can disagree and argue that such problems are outweighed by the promise of such research (and it remains only a decades-long promise), but don't simply dismiss it as illegitimate.

Click to expand...

I consider it illegitimate because you are opposed to ESCR and have yet to explain why it is wrong to take a nescient group of cells and use them to cure someone who is already alive. Again, what is your reason for opposing ESCR, besides the availability of alternatives?

EgoffTib said:

Yes.

Click to expand...

Then I say that you have not been paying attention to the debate. Because they are non-emotional and non-religous arguments against fed-funded ESCR such as alternative methods of embryonic stem cell collection/creation, the current state of adult stem cell research, an argument against using scarce resources to fund research that had led to very little result while adult stem cell research has led to actual medical treatments, etc...

Ethics and morals vary from person to person. If individuals wish to abolish ESCR, they should formulate a argument grounded in facts, not emotion or the Bible, if they wish to be taken seriously.

Click to expand...

Ethical considerations and moral bases do vary from one person to another, however, that doesn't invalidate any ethical or moral concern about such research.

Let me ask you this...

Do you perceive a line that should be crossed between creatng human embryoes for ESCR and creating human fetuses for ESCR? If so, on what basis does that line exist?

There's no reason why we cannot use all of the resources we have in our quest to eliminate illness in already living beings.

Click to expand...

All things being equal, sure...but they're not. We have finite resources, i.e., finite government dollars to spend.

I consider it illegitimate because you are opposed to ESCR and have yet to explain why it is wrong to take a nescient group of cells and use them to cure someone who is already alive.

Click to expand...

I have no obligation to present such an argument as there is no currently available medical treatment derived from ESCR in which to apply and cure someone who is already alive.

Again, what is your reason for opposing ESCR, besides the availability of alternatives?

Click to expand...

What, the availability of alternatives to using embryoes created specifically and only for research purposes ain't a good enough argument opposing the creation of emberyoes for you address? Even you must acknowledge that, while you consider them illegitimate, that there are ethical and moral concerns attached to the creation of human embryoes for research purposes only and that these alternatives successfully avoid those concerns, no?

Scarce resources that should be devoted to actual medical treatments derived from adult stem cell research rather than directing those scarce resources towards the mere promise of ESCR?

danarhea said:

As one of his first acts, President Obama is going to repeal the Bush rule that barred Federal money being used to counsel women on abortion services. Obama is also repealing the Bush rule against Federal money being used for stem cell research.

As far as Federal funding of stem cell research, that is a good decision. However, funding abortion services, IMHO, is wrong. Here is why:

1) As far as abortion goes, I believe it should be legal in those states which want it, and illegal in those which don't. It is up to the states themselves, and none of the Federal government's business. This is the reason that I am opposed to Roe v. Wade, just as I am opposed to any effort to federally criminalize abortion.

2) When you give Federal money for abortion counseling, you are essentially disrespecting the beliefs of those states which made abortion illegal. Yes, I am in favor of a woman's right to choose, but I would not dare to hit those who disagree with me over the head with my belief any more than I would agree with somebody hitting me over the head with a Bible and telling me I am going to hell.

3) America is not a one size fits all nation. Different areas of the country have different beliefs, and they are entitled to them. Whether a state supports or bans abortion is, frankly, none of the Federal government's business.

So, where do I stand in regard to Obama's decision today? On stem cell research, bravo. On Federal funding of abortionists, boo.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

The issue was not stem cell research but embryonic stem cell research.

BTW, EgOffTib, if you want to see emotional appeals in this debate look no further than your own statement here:

why it is wrong to take a nescient group of cells and use them to cure someone who is already alive.

Click to expand...

Now, if that's not an emotional appeal I don't know what it is.

Then, look at who the ESCR advocates trot out as their preferred spokesmen - Nancy Reagan, Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeve, Mary Tyler Moore...and what are they pitching? Nothing more than an emotional appeal, subsidized by their own personal loss/conditions, to a promise of results. That's all ESCR has been...a promise.

You cannot get around that fact.

JMak said:

BTW, EgOffTib, if you want to see emotional appeals in this debate look no further than your own statement here:

Click to expand...

This is the full statement:

I consider it illegitimate because you are opposed to ESCR and have yet to explain why it is wrong to take a nescient group of cells and use them to cure someone who is already alive.

Please show me the emotional argument I seem to be making in that sentence.

Now, if that's not an emotional appeal I don't know what it is.

Click to expand...

I noticed.

EgoffTib said:

This is the full statement:

I consider it illegitimate because you are opposed to ESCR and have yet to explain why it is wrong to take a nescient group of cells and use them to cure someone who is already alive.

Please show me the emotional argument I seem to be making in that sentence.

Click to expand...

Uh, the appeal to use said research to cure someone who is already alive. The emotional appeal is to the living person's worth relative to the worth (or lack thereof) of the potential for human life wrapped up in an embryo.

Hell, you completely ignored the fact that no current treatment exists that was derived from ESCR. Kinda stealing an intellectual base there, no?

BTW - ESCR is not "tak[ing] a nescient group of cells and use them to cure someone who is already alive".

I noticed.

Click to expand...

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.

JMak said:

Uh, the appeal to use said research to cure someone who is already alive. The emotional appeal is to the living person's worth relative to the worth (or lack thereof) of the potential for human life wrapped up in an embryo.

Click to expand...

Living, breathing human beings take precedent over 100,000 cells. The cells are not cognizant, aware, conscious, etc. They do not have friends, responsibilities, cares, fears, aspirations. They are are as much alive as the grass on my lawn.

Hell, you completely ignored the fact that no current treatment exists that was derived from ESCR. Kinda stealing an intellectual base there, no?

Click to expand...

Well I am personally willing to sacrifice some cells to find out.

EgoffTib said:

Living, breathing human beings take precedent over 100,000 cells. The cells are not cognizant, aware, conscious, etc. They do not have friends, responsibilities, cares, fears, aspirations. They are are as much alive as the grass on my lawn.

Click to expand...

Do you always engage in debates with yourself? You're still stealing that intellectual base. If there were any medical treatments derived from ESCR I'd have more sympathy for your argument. As there are no successful therapies using embryonic stem cells, claims that prohibiting or limiting embryonic stem cell research will deprive those suffering from disease and disability of an opportunity for health, or "condemn them to an early death," are exaggerated and unsubstantiated. Such claims appeal to emotion rather than facts in attempting to sway public opinion and obtain research dollars.

Well I am personally willing to sacrifice some cells to find out.

Click to expand...

Nice duck.

BTW - we're talking about a collection of inert cells, but an embryo. You're diminishing the value of an embryo simply so you can label it as a collection of cells with no intrinsic value other than cells related to the human species. Emrbyoes are much greater than that. We're not talking about scraping adult stem cells from the inside of an individual's nose to use to treat major spine injuries (btw, this is an actual treatment derived from adult stem cells). That you dimiss it demonstrates that your argument is nothing other than an emotional appeal.

EgoffTib said:

Living, breathing human beings take precedent over 100,000 cells. The cells are not cognizant, aware, conscious, etc. They do not have friends, responsibilities, cares, fears, aspirations. They are are as much alive as the grass on my lawn.
.

Click to expand...

This is a position built on philosophy and your own metaphysical, ethical and spiritual ideas. It is little different from one a Christian might put forward in this way.

Wessexman said:

This is a position built on philosophy and your own metaphysical, ethical and spiritual ideas. It is little different from one a Christian might put forward in this way.

Click to expand...

I only wish I could presented it as you have here. Props!

JMak said:

BTW - we're talking about a collection of inert cells, but an embryo. You're diminishing the value of an embryo simply so you can label it as a collection of cells with no intrinsic value other than cells related to the human species. Emrbyoes are much greater than that. We're not talking about scraping adult stem cells from the inside of an individual's nose to use to treat major spine injuries (btw, this is an actual treatment derived from adult stem cells). That you dimiss it demonstrates that your argument is nothing other than an emotional appeal.

Click to expand...

I'd say that diminishing the supposed value of an embryo is taking emotion out of it rather than putting it into the situation. Could you please elaborate to me just why embryonic stem cells are somehow "greater than that"? It's still a cell. The fact that you try to build it up as something more important without being able to back it up makes it an emotional argument for you.

dclxvinoise said:

I'd say that diminishing the supposed value of an embryo is taking emotion out of it rather than putting it into the situation. Could you please elaborate to me just why embryonic stem cells are somehow "greater than that"? It's still a cell. The fact that you try to build it up as something more important without being able to back it up makes it an emotional argument for you.

Click to expand...

Of course it is emotional we are talking about ethics and humanity not geology. It will be a sad day when these kinds of problems are not greeted with emotion.

Embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary and a waste of money. There's your "non-religious argument" against it. We can't afford to waste money.

Felicity said:

Embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary and a waste of money. .

Click to expand...

Why??????????

winston53660 said:

Why??????????

Click to expand...

Induced pluripotent stem cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia