• 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 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:

It is indisputable that an embryo ain't simply a cell, but a collection of cells with one purpose - human life. 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. 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.

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.

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.
:applaud Excellent.
 
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:

It is indisputable that an embryo ain't simply a cell, but a collection of cells with one purpose - human life. 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. 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.

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.

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.

And you're telling me that isn't an emotional argument? :roll: :lol:
 
:roll:
And you're telling me that isn't an emotional argument? :roll: :lol:

Unnecessary waste of money on invalid "research" to appease greedy Pharmaceutical companies who make $$$ off from people who suffer. In the end--it is a WASTE of money...that ALSO is ethically corrupt.
 
Last edited:
We should take emotions into consideration, but shouldn't let them get in the way of scientific progression.

I love how you people have reduced legit ethical and moral questions into simple emotional impulses.

I just have to wonder, though, if you people believe that ethics and morality play no role, why does the US not have a eugenics regime? I mean, you liberals, errr, progressives, were all about eugenics back in the day...what happened? Why is the US not permitting the harvesting of organs from death row inmates? Why is the US not permitting babies born with defects to be killed in the moments after delivery? Are you telling me that these policies have not ethical and moral foundation to them?

You guys are being completely intellectually dishonest here. The issue is whether the federal government should be subsidizing this research with public dollars. This is a public policy debate. While science informs policy debate, it is not and never has been a determining policy factor. Consequently, not only does scientific considerations become involved in the debate, but also fiscal responsibilities, ethical and moral considerations, legal responsibilities, etc.

Please stop pretending that our nation is led by the nose by scientists...or that we have a preference for such leadership.
 
:roll:

Unnecessary waste of money on invalid "research" to appease greedy Pharmaceutical companies who make $$$ off from people who suffer. In the end--it is a WASTE of money...that ALSO is ethically corrupt.

That's not what the poster I was replying to was using. He brought in the whole "life" argument which I would categorize as an emotional argument.
 
That's not what the poster I was replying to was using. He brought in the whole "life" argument which I would categorize as an emotional argument.

You didn't read it thoroughly, then.
 
I love how you people have reduced legit ethical and moral questions into simple emotional impulses.

I just have to wonder, though, if you people believe that ethics and morality play no role, why does the US not have a eugenics regime? I mean, you liberals, errr, progressives, were all about eugenics back in the day...what happened? Why is the US not permitting the harvesting of organs from death row inmates? Why is the US not permitting babies born with defects to be killed in the moments after delivery? Are you telling me that these policies have not ethical and moral foundation to them?

You guys are being completely intellectually dishonest here. The issue is whether the federal government should be subsidizing this research with public dollars. This is a public policy debate. While science informs policy debate, it is not and never has been a determining policy factor. Consequently, not only does scientific considerations become involved in the debate, but also fiscal responsibilities, ethical and moral considerations, legal responsibilities, etc.

Please stop pretending that our nation is led by the nose by scientists...or that we have a preference for such leadership.

It's so much easier to judge people when you judge them as a whole rather than on an individual basis, isn't it? I've not once stated a single thing on eugenics or babies with birth defects, so don't try to create arguments out of thin air just because you can't prove that your argument isn't emotional.
 
And you're telling me that isn't an emotional argument? :roll: :lol:

No, I am not telling you that. I was arguing that the pro-ESCR argument is an emotional one based only on appeal to a promise to help suffering individuals. I was arguing that ethical and moral considerations are proper in the public policy debate. I am arguing that there are existing and successful alternatives to destroying embryoes to harvest embryonic stem cells that avoid those ethical and moral problems. I am arguing that the indisputable success of adult stem cell research and that finite federal budget resources mitigate pouring even more federal dollars into ESCR relying on destroying embryoes.

This is not an emotional argument.
 
Yes, I did. The poster was criticizing me because I don't value life enough.
The whole 1st paragraph was concerning the INVALID claim that the "research" yields anything valid at all. The rest of it was about the false claim that ethics are not a reasonable reason to abandon a course of "scientific" study. --not specifically the life issue, although in this case that is the ethical question. S/he closed connecting the idea that it is both a fruitless "research" and a legitimate ethical concern. Read thoroughly. Close reading.
 
No need to insult me. I know the difference, and am not mischaracterizing anything. Fact is, Bush DID place limitations on stem cell research, which is what I originally said, although I did not specify the nature of his limitations. You said he didn't. Embryonic stem cells happen to the the important stems cells here, as you can't do as much with non-embryonic stem cells. The embryonic stem cell lines that Bush allowed researchers to keep were not very good lines at all, and practically worthless. With the change in policy comes the opening up of ALL embryonic stem cell lines.

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.
 
wasn't it found that adult stem cells were just as good anyway? I don't know, I'm not well read on the subject; but I thought there was a study using the two different types and they found that they were rather similar. If so, isn't it problem solved? Though maybe the issue comes in quantity. Don't know the answer to that one off hand either.
 
It's so much easier to judge people when you judge them as a whole rather than on an individual basis, isn't it? I've not once stated a single thing on eugenics or babies with birth defects, so don't try to create arguments out of thin air just because you can't prove that your argument isn't emotional.

My argument ain't an emotional one. It's based on the factors I cited above. If you are willing to pretend that I am relying only on emotion, well, I cannot reason out of you what not reasoned in in the first place.

Secondly, I presented to you questions about post-delivery abortions and eugenics because your argument is that ethical and moral considerations have no place in science or public policy. That is obviously false given that scientists themselves resists conducting ethical problemmatic research and government policy has made it impermissable to conduct such research. The US does not permit eugenics explicitly because of the ethical and moral hazards associated with it. The US does not permit medical experimentation on death row inmates and prisoners of war explicitly because of the ethical and moral hazards associated with such research.

In other words, ethical and moral considerations have a proper place in our public discourse no matter that you pretend otherwise.
 
Though maybe the issue comes in quantity. Don't know the answer to that one off hand either.

Like many things---at its core, it's about money...and you know what they say about the love of money...
 
wasn't it found that adult stem cells were just as good anyway? I don't know, I'm not well read on the subject; but I thought there was a study using the two different types and they found that they were rather similar. If so, isn't it problem solved? Though maybe the issue comes in quantity. Don't know the answer to that one off hand either.


No, nt that they are similar. The two cell types behave differently. However, recent research has demonstrated that adult stem cells can be reprogrammed to behave as embryonic stem cells can. Yet, another reason to mitigate against using public dollars to subsidize ethicall and morally hazardous research when alternatives exist which do not have similar ethical and moral hazards associated with it.
 
The problem with this is that leaving it up to the states leaves the states open to instituting laws which could be wrong. For example. Lets say Washington put a ban on abortion. Law stating that if anyone that lives in Wasington State had an abortion then they would be prosecuted for 1st degree murder. But next door in Idaho abortion is legal. Someone from Washington wants and abortion so they go to Idaho to get it done. They come back to Washington and get turned in by a very nosey nieghbor. This person then gets prosecuted for having an abortion...even though she did it in a state where it is legal. This is why the Federal Government had to take control of the issue. It leaves the states open to make laws that could contradict anothers states laws. IE it leaves it open for abuse.

The federal Government, though, didn't take control. Unelected and unaccountable judges took control of a public policy issue and removed it from the democratic process.

This links into 1. Something that you also must remember is that for many (certainly not all) the abortion issue is a religious issue. And the government cannot make laws based upon religion.

Weak. Says who?

I guess if you pretend that the 1st Amendment really means that the government has the power to protect us from religion you could get there, but, alas, that's not the 1st Amendment. If you wanna talk about the wall of separation concept I would suggest that you read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist's as it reveals what he thought that concept really meant.

You are correct here. However for certain issues like abortion a "one size fits all" is a must.

Nonsense. What you're advocating is for judicial usurptation of the democratic process.
 
Well, to be fair people complained about Bush after he was elected because of how close the race was and how the electoral college said that Bush won, yet the popular vote said that Gore won. People did unite behind Bush after 9/11 too, but that only really lasted until the Iraq war and that's when people really started to criticize him. I'm not trying to justify their complaints, I'm just saying there was a bit more cause there. A lot of people on the right (Rush Limbaugh for instance) are hoping that Obama fails and considering the economic crisis that we are in and all of the other crap I think it's important that we unite at least on that front. That doesn't mean that you can't criticize the man's policies that you didn't agree with in the first place, though.

Unity is an unteneble and unknowable position. IMO, I don't prefer unity. Political disagreement and dissent is a good and healthy thing.

And, btw, I listen to Rush everyday and I have not heard him say that he wishes Obama fails. He simply doesn't agree that Obama's proposals will be the right policy calls.

But do continue drawing grossly unfair caricatures of him... :roll:
 
Unity is an unteneble and unknowable position. IMO, I don't prefer unity. Political disagreement and dissent is a good and healthy thing.

And, btw, I listen to Rush everyday and I have not heard him say that he wishes Obama fails. He simply doesn't agree that Obama's proposals will be the right policy calls.

But do continue drawing grossly unfair caricatures of him... :roll:

Then you must have missed this broadcast.

YouTube - Rush Limbaugh: "I hope Obama fails"
 
from the broadcast.
"I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year and a half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed."
 
from the broadcast.
"I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year and a half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed."

Did he or did he not say "I hope Obama fails." ??

And by the way, his policies and politics are tied to how he's going to fix the economy. It's one thing to say you don't agree with his policies and politics, but to hope that he fails? That's a bit absurd to me. It goes to show how some people still love to play the partisan politics game.
 
Last edited:
from the broadcast.
"I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year and a half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed."

This kinda clears it up. Rush believes that Obama's policies are socialist in nature and intended to cause a deliberate and dramatic leftward shift in American government and economy. Yeah, given this, I'd say Rush would want Obama's policies to fail. In fact, so would I.
 
"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."
 
Did he or did he not say "I hope Obama fails." ??

And by the way, his policies and politics are tied to how he's going to fix the economy. It's one thing to say you don't agree with his policies and politics, but to hope that he fails? That's a bit absurd to me. It goes to show how some people still love to play the partisan politics game.

As if Obama ain't playng partisan policts...pfffft. Funny, despite all of Obama's rhetoric of openness to new ideas, his entire legisaltive history is not just centrist-Democrat but left liberal. There's no way you can be open to persuasion from your ideological opponents and, yet, always fall in the same direction as left-liberal legislative colleagues.

Color me underwhelmed with this presumed post-partisan crap.
 
Back
Top Bottom