NationStates Jolt Archive

While I myself am in favour of legal abortion (well, at least up until the point in the pregnancy where we have plenty of scientific reason to believe the fetus would have a consciousness) I've noticed that sometimes opposition to abortion is associated with sexism. Why is it, then, that we don't see opposition to embryonic stem cell research associated with prejudice against those who have diseases ESCR has potential to cure?

In the newspaper of the university I go to, there was once a news article quoting someone who was referring to anti-abortionists as saying "it's safe to say they are woman haters"; why don't we get to see much of people saying "it's safe to say the people who are against ESCR hate those who have diseases it has potential to cure"?

In the same newspaper, there was a letter to the editor that repeatedly referred to anti-abortionists as "anti-choice"; it's one thing to talk about your own side as being "pro-choice" but when you label people anti-choice for believing a fetus to qualify as a person to have law intervene to protect, that's another case. Now obviously, some anti-abortion individuals claim that people who have abortions are making the wrong choice for themselves and would supposedly be "better off" if they didn't have abortions, (which I frankly think is ridiculous) so THOSE individuals can reasonably be labelled anti-choice. But those who think the fetus should have legal rights, even if at the expense of the mother, aren't necessarily "anti-choice"; as someone in another thread pointed out, one's right to swing a hammer stops where another's face begins. Why don't we get to see those who are in favour of ESCR called the "pro-health" people and those who are against it labelled "anti-health" like there is with "pro-choice" and "anti-choice"?

And another thing is about the "danger to the mother" exception, for times when the fetus development would kill the mother if an abortion was not preformed. I agree completely with this myself, even into times after the "reason to believe the fetus has consciousness" point, but I've heard there's people who don't believe in the rape exception and yet believe in this exception. But ESCR could save many lives as well, so why doesn't it have as popular support?

The relevant issue isn't "choice vs. life" but whether or not a fetus should have legal rights protections under the law, and why so; would you believe a fetus to be sentient? Why? On what science do you base this claim? Once we focus on the relevant issues, then we can apply them equally so to ESCR, because most reasons for opposition to ESCR can apply just as much so (and maybe even more so) to abortion, and yet we don't see as much activism for ESCR as for abortion...

I've noticed that sometimes opposition to abortion is associated with sexism. Why is it, then, that we don't see opposition to embryonic stem cell research associated with prejudice against those who have diseases ESCR has potential to cure?

because the sexism is the point of opposition to abortion, while the other is just a side-effect

Actually, I believe the anti-abortionists are perfectly willing to let people die from, for instance, Alzheimer's, as long as women don't get to choose.

I can't understand the objections to this research. The stem cells scientists want to clone are already dead (frozen, sorry Walt Disney, we can't fix frozen) and would be able to produce an infinate number of cells that could never become human beings. I just have to bang my head against the wall, killing brain cells that stem cells could easily replace, when I consider the foolish 'morality' of the current debate. The potental for this technology is as limitless as stem cell's ability to help mankind.

because the sexism is the point of opposition to abortion, while the other is just a side-effect
What, do you think you can read minds or something? Why would you claim to know what someone else's reason is for having their position on an issue more so than they themselves? Did it ever occur to you that different people might be against abortion for different reasons?

What, do you think you can read minds or something? Why would you claim to know what someone else's reason is for having their position on an issue more so than they themselves? Did it ever occur to you that different people might be against abortion for different reasons?

the sexism is inherent in their position, and easily seen in their alleged justifications. in so far as there are people who hold the position for non-sexist reasons, they apparently have no impact on the movement and no standing in the argument.

I can't understand the objections to this research.

that's because you are trying to think rationally about it. it doesn't work like that.

Didn't the stem cell debate sort of end recently when a method of producing them without using fetal stem cells was invented? I don't think we need abortions to harvest stem cells anymore.

Didn't the stem cell debate sort of end recently when a method of producing them without using fetal stem cells was invented? I don't think we need abortions to harvest stem cells anymore.

1- It's not an abortion.

2- Embryonic ones are more versatile and better.

1- It's not an abortion.

2- Embryonic ones are more versatile and better.

I have no idea. I was just asking the question. I'm pro-choice in any case.

I think the most important question to ask about stem cell research is this: can it make my penis bigger? If the answer is yes, all male resistance will vanish faster than you can say "Natural Male Enhancement".

Didn't the stem cell debate sort of end recently when a method of producing them without using fetal stem cells was invented? I don't think we need abortions to harvest stem cells anymore.
I don't think we needed abortions to harvest them in the first place; the very benefit of embryonic over other stem cells is that they're unspecialized cells, and thus have more plasticity (as in, can more easily form different types of cells) and therefore IVF embryos are better for stem cells than fetuses anyway. And cloning embryos would've been another good source too. As for the method you're talking about, I get the impression that you're referring to the supposed "method" mentioned on the news of making adult stem cells behave like embryonic stem cells, which from what I heard simply isn't quite effective enough, therefore we still need the IVF/cloned embryo cells.

I think the most important question to ask about stem cell research is this: can it make my penis bigger? If the answer is yes, all male resistance will vanish faster than you can say "Natural Male Enhancement".
That was just sexist. Could you imagine the reaction if someone on this site made a similar comment about a female stereotype?

I don't think we needed abortions to harvest them in the first place; the very benefit of embryonic over other stem cells is that they're unspecialized cells, and thus have more plasticity (as in, can more easily form different types of cells) and therefore IVF embryos are better for stem cells than fetuses anyway. And cloning embryos would've been another good source too. As for the method you're talking about, I get the impression that you're referring to the supposed "method" mentioned on the news of making adult stem cells behave like embryonic stem cells, which from what I heard simply isn't quite effective enough, therefore we still need the IVF/cloned embryo cells.

Yeah, that does sound like the story I had heard about. I didn't realize that method wasn't as effective, though. It's interesting anyway.

That was just sexist. Could you imagine the reaction if someone on this site made a similar comment about a female stereotype?

Lets find out shall we?
The only question we need to answer about stem cell research is this: can it makes my breasts bigger? If the answer is yes, we would see all female resistance to this issue dissolve faster than you can say "Two cup sizes in two weeks... OR YOUR MONEY BACK!"

Honestly, some people can't take a joke.

Lets find out shall we?
The only question we need to answer about stem cell research is this: can it makes my breasts bigger? If the answer is yes, we would see all female resistance to this issue dissolve faster than you can say "Two cup sizes in two weeks... OR YOUR MONEY BACK!"

Honestly, some people can't take a joke.

I thought it was funny. Honestly, you can't watch t.v. for more than five minutes anymore without hearing a 'male enhancement' ad - in that context, I didn't find it sexist. :p

Lets find out shall we?
The only question we need to answer about stem cell research is this: can it makes my breasts bigger? If the answer is yes, we would see all female resistance to this issue dissolve faster than you can say "Two cup sizes in two weeks... OR YOUR MONEY BACK!"

Honestly, some people can't take a joke.
Sorry, it's just that there seems to be some politically-correct hypersensitivity on this site, such as in the reaction to someone who wanted to so much as discuss the term "feminazi" a while back, and the association of anti-abortionism with sexism I already mentioned.

I thought it was funny. Honestly, you can't watch t.v. for more than five minutes anymore without hearing a 'male enhancement' ad - in that context, I didn't find it sexist. :p
I tend not to bother with the idiot box, so I guess that would explain different interpretations of the joke...

Sorry, it's just that there seems to be some politically-correct hypersensitivity on this site

not towards house-monkeys

or anything else for that matter :confused:

At the very least, abortion should be allowed up to the point that a premature birth has a chance of living. There's no rational reason to oppose stem cell research, which occurs long before that.

At the very least, abortion should be allowed up to the point that a premature birth has a chance of living. There's no rational reason to oppose stem cell research, which occurs long before that.
I don't really understand how abortion and embryonic* stem cell research are even connected. Abortions kill the thing growing in the mother, and if you consider that human I can see how you would take umbrage at destroying it.
Embryonic stem cells are not killed in the mother. They are the by-product of in-vitro fertilization, when they have lots of leftover fertilized eggs. They never see the womb of the mother, but are preserved. This research is, at worst, finding a useful outcome from an "immoral" practice.


* As far as I know, no one is opposed to non-embryonic stem cell research.

Once we focus on the relevant issues, then we can apply them equally so to ESCR, because most reasons for opposition to ESCR can apply just as much so (and maybe even more so) to abortion, and yet we don't see as much activism for ESCR as for abortion...

I think the reason why there is less activism for ESCR than for abortion is twofold:

One, that ESCR doesn't necessarily infringe on a woman's right to control her body. Despite all the smoke and mirrors, the Abortion debate has nothing to do with the fetus and at what time it's human. It has everything to do with the woman's right to control her own body counterbalanced with the viability of the fetus and the risk of the procedure vs. carrying to term. Viability and risk are medical decisions, not political ones.

Two, I think most people recognize that one of the richest sources of embryonic stem cells, frozen embryos... *takes a deep breath* AREN'T ALIVE!!!! Sorry for shouting like that. But it's true. They're frozen. Fro-didily-ozen. One of the reasons why a frozen embryo can be thawed(do they use a microwave, or just leave it on the counter for a few hours?), implanted and have a reasonable chance to survive(there's a reason why they usually implant a bunch at once) is the reason why they're so valuable to science. People can find abortion distasteful, but only a complete fool would get emotional over a frozen burrito.

:)

the sexism is inherent in their position, and easily seen in their alleged justifications.Not being able to capitalize your sentence makes you a moot.

Not being able to capitalize your sentence makes you a moot.

capitalization is for suckers. and master theses.

One, that ESCR doesn't necessarily infringe on a woman's right to control her body.
You mean stopping ESCR doesn't "infringe" like stopping abortion does, right? If so, bear in mind that if one can argue the fetus to be a human being, one can argue that with respect to abortion one is talking about a woman's right to control the fetus's body as well. Again, if one can argue an embryo to be a human being, one can CERTAINLY argue a fetus to be a human being.

It has everything to do with the woman's right to control her own body counterbalanced with the viability of the fetus and the risk of the procedure vs. carrying to term.
What do you mean, "viability"? Again, if an embryo is a human being, then a fetus has to be since it's later in development. (And since the embryos they use probably wouldn't otherwise have a chance of developing into human beings anyway)

They're frozen. Fro-didily-ozen. One of the reasons why a frozen embryo can be thawed(do they use a microwave, or just leave it on the counter for a few hours?), implanted and have a reasonable chance to survive(there's a reason why they usually implant a bunch at once) is the reason why they're so valuable to science. People can find abortion distasteful, but only a complete fool would get emotional over a frozen burrito.
Then isn't that if anything a reason to support embryonic stem cell research MORE than abortion? You do realize that this thread was about things said in support of abortion for which it seems like I never hear equivalent things said in support of embryonic stem cell research, right?

You mean stopping ESCR doesn't "infringe" like stopping abortion does, right? If so, bear in mind that if one can argue the fetus to be a human being, one can argue that with respect to abortion one is talking about a woman's right to control the fetus's body as well. Again, if one can argue an embryo to be a human being, one can CERTAINLY argue a fetus to be a human being.

and if one could argue that everyone has a pony, then even red haired people would have ponies.

Again, if an embryo is a human being, then a fetus has to be since it's later in development.

and thus teenagers are infants and corpses of those that died of old-age are 20-somethings.

You mean stopping ESCR doesn't "infringe" like stopping abortion does, right? If so, bear in mind that if one can argue the fetus to be a human being, one can argue that with respect to abortion one is talking about a woman's right to control the fetus's body as well. Again, if one can argue an embryo to be a human being, one can CERTAINLY argue a fetus to be a human being.


What do you mean, "viability"? Again, if an embryo is a human being, then a fetus has to be since it's later in development. (And since the embryos they use probably wouldn't otherwise have a chance of developing into human beings anyway)


Then isn't that if anything a reason to support embryonic stem cell research MORE than abortion? You do realize that this thread was about things said in support of abortion for which it seems like I never hear equivalent things said in support of embryonic stem cell research, right?

You seem to search for a lot of 'meaning' in my words. That way lies madness. *nod*

On the first point, it really has nothing to do with ESCR. If we start debating 'is a fetus a human being?' here, we just have another abortion thread.

On the second point, same as the first. But if you want a better definition of 'viability', I would call it the point where a fetus' survival removed from the mother are high. How high is high enough? That's up to doctors not politicians. A mother doesn't intrinsically have control over the survival of her unborn fetus. She merely has an absolute right to have it removed(barring the third factor: risk).

On the third point, there's been plenty of it. Remember the Dubya photo-op when he had his picture taken with a dozen people who were all born from donated spare embryos? It's just not as loud as abortion because the the pro-life stance grows a bit murkier when you're comparing the lives of the unborn to the lives of the sick and dying.

and if one could argue that everyone has a pony, then even red haired people would have ponies.
If "everyone" means "everyone. literally, wthiout exception" then yeah. So how does that as an analogy defeat my points about support for abortion without support for ESCR?

and thus teenagers are infants and corpses of those that died of old-age are 20-somethings.
Wait... what? I'm confused, what do you mean by this? Are you implying that a frozen embryo has more value than a fetus? Now I personally don't believe that either should be considered unless there's scientific reason to believe that they have gained a consciousness to lose, but again, as I pointed out several times, the topic's about things said in support of abortion that don't seem to have equivalents said in support of ESCR...

On the third point, there's been plenty of it. Remember the Dubya photo-op when he had his picture taken with a dozen people who were all born from donated spare embryos?
Hmm? I haven't heard of that one. o.o

Hmm? I haven't heard of that one. o.o

I think he called the 'snowflake people' or 'snowflake children' or some other cute Pr-friently name.

Edit: After a bit of wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_children, he didn't coin the term. I still hold him responsible though. ;)

If "everyone" means "everyone. literally, wthiout exception" then yeah. So how does that as an analogy defeat my points about support for abortion without support for ESCR?

the point is that your antecedent doesn't hold, so it doesn't matter that the consequent would if it did.

Wait... what? I'm confused, what do you mean by this?

i mean that even if your antecedent here was true, the consequent wouldn't follow.

the point is that your antecedent doesn't hold, so it doesn't matter that the consequent would if it did.
Ok I guess I misinterpreted your comment then. But just to be sure, what in my comments were you saying was the "antecedent" and the "consequent"?

Ok I guess I misinterpreted your comment then. But just to be sure, what in my comments were you saying was the "antecedent" and the "consequent"?

sorry, slightly technical terminology. basically, it works like:
if (antecedent), then (consequent)

so in the first bit, the antecedent i say clearly doesn't hold is "one can [successfully] argue the fetus to be a human being [presumably equivalent to 'person', if this is supposed to be meaningful]".


edit: also worth noting is that i'm not claiming that because the antecedent is false, the consequent must be false. the point is merely that the if-then doesn't address reality and so cannot tell us anything at all.

the sexism is inherent in their position, and easily seen in their alleged justifications. in so far as there are people who hold the position for non-sexist reasons, they apparently have no impact on the movement and no standing in the argument.

You are mixing implications with motivations. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that sexism is the motivation for anti choice, even though it may have the implication of limiting a 'right' of women. It's not as if anti-choicers would approve of men having an abortion if they were somehow able to get pregnant.

You are mixing implications with motivations. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that sexism is the motivation for anti choice, even though it may have the implication of limiting a 'right' of women. It's not as if anti-choicers would approve of men having an abortion if they were somehow able to get pregnant.

no, its not about implication. their reasons for opposing abortion are openly and flagrantly sexist. their ideas about what to do about it are openly and flagrantly sexist. even the exceptions they make are openly and flagrantly sexist.

i think perhaps you have a slightly confused conception of what makes something sexist.

no, its not about implication. their reasons for opposing abortion are openly and flagrantly sexist. their ideas about what to do about it are openly and flagrantly sexist. even the exceptions they make are openly and flagrantly sexist.

i think perhaps you have a slightly confused conception of what makes something sexist.

Examples?

I mean I can't think of any. I don't see how the sanctity of life is remotely sexist, or the idea that life begins from conception. If you view abortion as murder, then when the right to not be pregnant conflicts with the right not to be murdered, it's not sexist to choose the right not to be murdered as more important, even if only women will suffer from this.

sorry, slightly technical terminology. basically, it works like:
if (antecedent), then (consequent)

so in the first bit, the antecedent i say clearly doesn't hold is "one can [successfully] argue the fetus to be a human being [presumably equivalent to 'person', if this is supposed to be meaningful]".


edit: also worth noting is that i'm not claiming that because the antecedent is false, the consequent must be false. the point is merely that the if-then doesn't address reality and so cannot tell us anything at all.
Ok, in that case I need to clarify my reasoning; I was saying that IF embryos could qualify as humans then fetuses would have to. If someone believed embryos were people, then they need to apply that just as much so to abortions, and if they didn't, then why aren't people supporting ESCR as much as abortion?

If someone believed embryos were people, then they need to apply that just as much so to abortions, and if they didn't, then why aren't people supporting ESCR as much as abortion?

Because ESCR has no direct consquence over most people's lives. Methinks we're simply having a "think for today" attitude.

Examples?

I mean I can't think of any. I don't see how the sanctity of life is remotely sexist, or the idea that life begins from conception. If you view abortion as murder, then when the right to not be pregnant conflicts with the right not to be murdered, it's not sexist to choose the right not to be murdered as more important, even if only women will suffer from this.

what punishment do they demand be inflicted on women who get abortions?
what is the justification for allowing abortions in cases of rape but not in cases of broken condoms?

the thing is is that they don't care about the sanctity of life or believe that abortion is murder or that personhood begins at conception.

what punishment do they demand be inflicted on women who get abortions?
If you're referring to how the punishment is less than that of murder, perhaps it could mean that they're trying to "compromise" with respect to the punishments. Some of them don't compromise, like the person who murdered an abortion doctor. (mentioned in Dawkins' "The Virus of Faith" film)

what is the justification for allowing abortions in cases of rape but not in cases of broken condoms?
Well, cases of rape prove the "if you don't want to have children don't have sex" argument to be too simplistic, and a raped invidual is likely often traumatized and would be overwhelmed by having to take care of a child they did nothing to end up with, and some believe in an exception for these cases (and some don't) but people KNOW that condoms aren't a guarantee against unwanted pregnancies (you know, stuff you'd learn in grade 9 sex ed class) so people who have sex while using a condom are choosing to take the risk knowing what it is, (like people point out when it comes to deadbeat dads) whereas someone who was forced to have sex didn't choose to take that risk.

I don't personally agree with that approach, but it doesn't necessarily prove that anti-abortionism inherently has a hidden sexist agenda.

the thing is is that they don't care about the sanctity of life or believe that abortion is murder or that personhood begins at conception.
How can you be so sure? Who are you to claim to know what other people are thinking, especially given your basis for it?


EDIT: And again, if it's just about sexism, then why are they also against ESCR, and why aren't those opposed to them in turn supporting ESCR just as much so as abortion? (I'm trying to get back on topic, probably failing o.o)

If you're referring to how the punishment is less than that of murder, perhaps it could mean that they're trying to "compromise" with respect to the punishments. Some of them don't compromise, like the person who murdered an abortion doctor. (mentioned in Dawkins' "The Virus of Faith" film)

no, i am referring to the fact that hiring someone to murder someone is a serious crime. being an accomplice to murder is ethically nearly the same as doing the murder yourself. but every single fucking time anyone has ever asked anti-choicers what they intend to do to the women who get abortions, they have never once in the entire history of the asking quickly and decisively responded "life imprisonment!" never. you don't even hear people quickly offer up even minor sentences. never.

Well, cases of rape prove the "if you don't want to have children don't have sex" argument to be too simplistic, and a raped invidual is likely often traumatized and would be overwhelmed by having to take care of a child they did nothing to end up with, and some believe in an exception for these cases (and some don't) but people KNOW that condoms aren't a guarantee against unwanted pregnancies (you know, stuff you'd learn in grade 9 sex ed class) so people who have sex while using a condom are choosing to take the risk knowing what it is, (like people point out when it comes to deadbeat dads) whereas someone who was forced to have sex didn't choose to take that risk.

you made the classic sexist move right here yourself. the difference is that in one case the girl is a dirty dirty whore who deserves what she gets, and in the other she is an abused innocent who must be protected. the supposed value of the embryo is totally and absolutely absent from the reasoning that allows the distinction, and is fundamentally incompatible with it.

How can you be so sure? Who are you to claim to know what other people are thinking, especially given your basis for it?

because we can, for example, put hypotheticals to them that actually test their moral intuitions, and it turns out that nobody actually believes that blastocysts are really persons - mainly because doing so would require you to act in ways that are unambiguously unethical and would get you called a monster at best if you acted on them.

but every single fucking time anyone has ever asked anti-choicers what they intend to do to the women who get abortions, they have never once in the entire history of the asking quickly and decisively responded "life imprisonment!" never. you don't even hear people quickly offer up even minor sentences. never.
Just because you never hear or see tell of it, doesn't mean it "never" happens. To be fair, I don't specifically recall it either, but at least I don't rule out that something might have happened that I didn't hear or see... (or remember, for that matter) after all, it's kinda hard to prove a negative.

you made the classic sexist move right here yourself.
How is that "sexist" in itself? I never said that someone who knows the consequences and takes the risks is a "dirty dirty whore" so don't go putting words in my mouth.

Would you claim that those who say "he could have kept it in his pants" about deadbeat dads want the father punished and don't care about the child?

the supposed value of the embryo is totally and absolutely absent from the reasoning that allows the distinction
True, but it's just that they're compromising with respect to an aspect of it that some of them disagree with. On another forum I go to an anti-abortionist talked about the rape exception in the sense that he disagreed with it (saying specifically about how the "unborn child" should not be punished for the actions of the father) but would not judge rape victims who had abortions.

nobody actually believes that blastocysts are really persons
Except for those who are blocking embryonic stem cell research (which doesn't seem to have as much support as abortion) which is part of what this topic is about.

I can't understand the objections to this research.

I know more than one person who swears that doctors are deliberately urging women to have abortions to get the stem cells. They absolutely would not listen to me when I tried to explain that stem cells are taken from frozen embryos that were never were and would never be implanted.

I have no problem with stem cell research, provided it's not paid for with taxpayer money. If you support the research, feel free to donate your own money.

I have no problem with stem cell research, provided it's not paid for with taxpayer money. If you support the research, feel free to donate your own money.

So, if I was a tax paying Crime lord, I could argue that I don't have a problem with law enforcement, so long as it's not paid for with taxpayer money, and that if you support law enforcement donate your own money?

Bullshit.

the money any one taxpayer gives to the government in the form of taxes is so insignificant, that his or her voice should be equally insignificant if you're going to make such stupid statement.

You pay taxes, that's a fact of life, but you forfeit all rights to control that money once it leaves your hand. Do you go into a corner store and tell the owner that, because you bought a Coffeecrisp you don't want that .99 cents spent on buying meat products because you don't like such things? Are you so arrogant?




-----

I feel I should point out that this new technology involving 'adult' stem cells isn't just less effective, but around half of all adult stem cells made end up as cancerous cells, they're simply not stable.

I have no problem with stem cell research, provided it's not paid for with taxpayer money. If you support the research, feel free to donate your own money.
Are you against public health care as well?

Just because you never hear or see tell of it, doesn't mean it "never" happens. To be fair, I don't specifically recall it either, but at least I don't rule out that something might have happened that I didn't hear or see... (or remember, for that matter) after all, it's kinda hard to prove a negative.

You don't seem to get the concept of burden of proof.
Because it is so hard to prove a negative, all claims are assumed false until proven true.
Therefore, he is right until and unless you (or someone else) can prove him wrong.


How is that "sexist" in itself? I never said that someone who knows the consequences and takes the risks is a "dirty dirty whore" so don't go putting words in my mouth.

Would you claim that those who say "he could have kept it in his pants" about deadbeat dads want the father punished and don't care about the child?

No, but you did fall victim to the reasoning that how the woman got pregnant has anything at all to do with whether she should have an abortion.
The only way to justify this is to say that the woman who chose to have sex somehow deserves it.
When you consider "it" here means to have a near-parasite in her womb for nine months, followed by pushing it out a hole that was just not designed to put a baby through, followed by eighteen years of devoting resources to the kid she never wanted in the first place, you end up with the message "sex is a very bad thing for women to do", and so any woman who has sex anyway is a "dirty dirty whore".


True, but it's just that they're compromising with respect to an aspect of it that some of them disagree with. On another forum I go to an anti-abortionist talked about the rape exception in the sense that he disagreed with it (saying specifically about how the "unborn child" should not be punished for the actions of the father) but would not judge rape victims who had abortions.

But why is it even up for discussion?
If the fetus is a person, it should make no difference how it got there.


Except for those who are blocking embryonic stem cell research (which doesn't seem to have as much support as abortion) which is part of what this topic is about.
Oh no, not even them.
Ask anyone in the world, if they could either save a little kid or a box of blastocysts from a burning laboratory, which one they would save.
Everyone always picks the kid. No matter how much they say the blastocysts are alive, they pick the kid.
Even though, if the blastocysts really are alive, it would be far more moral to save about a thousand "people" then one kid.

There are actually some rather large developmental differences between aborted fetal/embryonic matter and stem cell research. Stem cells can be obtained from discarded embryos as well as umbilical cord blood. Both are something that is set to be thrown away, and is very undeveloped. Embryos must be VERY fresh, and unimplanted for research to even be possible. Aborted fetal/embryonic matter is far too developed to even matter. It gets immediately demoted from potential research material to simple medical waste.

I know there is some controversy about whether or not it's ethical to dispose of lab-created embryos. I don't see any problem with it. It's simply mimicking what a woman's body would do with them -- they are unimplanted, so they are flushed out. I'm all for using something otherwise useless to work on curing/treating some miserable disease.

I also consider myself pro-choice. I really do wish we were to a point where abortion was no longer a necessary procedure. I also wish we were to a point where chemotherapy wasn't necessary, but neither of those is going to happen any time soon, so we've gotta do what we've gotta do, you know?

When you consider "it" here means to have a near-parasite in her womb for nine months, followed by pushing it out a hole that was just not designed to put a baby through, followed by eighteen years of devoting resources to the kid she never wanted in the first place
And that just happens to be what I think of unwanted pregnancies. But so long as one could argue that one "chose" to be pregnant, one can make the distinction. That said, as I pointed out, it's not that the anti-abortionists so much personally believe in the rape exception as are apparently more so compromising when it comes to people with exceptional circumstances.

By the way, as for the "eighteen years of devoting resources to the kid one never wanted in the first place" one could argue that could apply to deadbeat dads who when having sex thought their sexual partner would get an abortion. Why do I point this out? Because it seemed like you refused to address the previously asked question: Would you claim that those who say "he could have kept it in his pants" about deadbeat dads want the father punished and that it's not about the child? Granted, a deadbeat dad didn't have to bear the child on top of that, but how much worse is bearing a child than bearing a disease that ESCR has potential to cure? If it's not worse, then shouldn't people be supporting ESCR just as much so as abortion?

Oh no, not even them.
Ask anyone in the world, if they could either save a little kid or a box of blastocysts from a burning laboratory, which one they would save.
Everyone always picks the kid.
And yet, people aren't supporting ESCR just as much as abortion.

I know more than one person who swears that doctors are deliberately urging women to have abortions to get the stem cells. They absolutely would not listen to me when I tried to explain that stem cells are taken from frozen embryos that were never were and would never be implanted.
Well, if being nice to uneducated (if not brainwashed) people while they're spreading bullshit isn't working, maybe a different approach is called for.

And that just happens to be what I think of unwanted pregnancies. But so long as one could argue that one "chose" to be pregnant, one can make the distinction. That said, as I pointed out, it's not that the anti-abortionists so much personally believe in the rape exception as are apparently more so compromising when it comes to people with exceptional circumstances.

but, by their own alleged principles, the compromise is directly equivalent to allowing me to murder the 5 year old children of a person who did something bad to me. the compromise makes a mockery of their alleged justification for opposing abortion.

By the way, as for the "eighteen years of devoting resources to the kid one never wanted in the first place" one could argue that could apply to deadbeat dads who when having sex thought their sexual partner would get an abortion.

unless there is some sort of explicit agreement that the dude will bear no responsibility, then he does adopt that sort of responsibility. to require otherwise is to either unfairly distribution responsibility or to place illegitimate demands on a woman's bodily autonomy.

And yet, people aren't supporting ESCR just as much as abortion.

what?

Just because you never hear or see tell of it, doesn't mean it "never" happens. To be fair, I don't specifically recall it either, but at least I don't rule out that something might have happened that I didn't hear or see... (or remember, for that matter) after all, it's kinda hard to prove a negative.

i take it as a given that induction works. the evidence thus far seems to strongly imply that if there are any exceptions, they are so few and so marginalized that they effectively do not exist in the context of the so-called 'pro-life' movement. which is close enough as makes no difference.

Except for those who are blocking embryonic stem cell research (which doesn't seem to have as much support as abortion) which is part of what this topic is about.

no, not them either. you are positing a consistency that isn't there. the anti-abortion movement is made up of people who haven't actually thought their shit through. if they ever did, the movement would disappear.

the compromise makes a mockery of their alleged justification for opposing abortion.
True enough, but it doesn't "prove" what their motives are, just that they're willing to compromise their principles for whatever likely PR-related reason.

what?
What do you mean "what"? That's what this topic is about in the first place. See what I mentioned in the first post about:

- The apparent lack of labels like "anti-health" about ESCR to go with ones like "anti-choice" about abortion...

- How opposition to ESCR doesn't seem to be associated with prejudice against the diseased as much so as opposition to abortion being associated with sexism

- How it seems like more people assume anti-abortionists are all woman haters than assume that anti-ESCR people all hate those with diseases ESCR has potential to cure

- Just like the danger to the mother exception saves lives, so could ESCR which doesn't seem to have as much popular support.

no, not them either. you are positing a consistency that isn't there. the anti-abortion movement is made up of people who haven't actually thought their shit through. if they ever did, the movement would disappear.
I agree that anti-abortionists don't seem to have thought it through, but it seems like you're contradicting yourself here; you were previously suggesting their real motives were sexist and now you're suggesting they just haven't thought it through. Which is it?

What do you mean "what"? That's what this topic is about in the first place. See what I mentioned in the first post about:

- The apparent lack of labels like "anti-health" about ESCR to go with ones like "anti-choice" about abortion...

- How opposition to ESCR doesn't seem to be associated with prejudice against the diseased as much so as opposition to abortion being associated with sexism

- How it seems like more people assume anti-abortionists are all woman haters than assume that anti-ESCR people all hate those with diseases ESCR has potential to cure

- Just like the danger to the mother exception saves lives, so could ESCR which doesn't seem to have as much popular support.

because the stem cell thing is new - it only very recently got added to an already existent movement. the sexism is fundamental.

and what lack of popular support? stem cell research is massively approved of in every poll ever done. it is even more popular than the pro-choice position is. in fact, stem cell research poses a big danger to anti-abortion people because it might touch off people actually examining their beliefs on the subject and realizing that they don't actually have any grounds to oppose abortion at all.

I agree that anti-abortionists don't seem to have thought it through, but it seems like you're contradicting yourself here; you were previously suggesting their real motives were sexist and now you're suggesting they just haven't thought it through. Which is it?

how are those contradictory? they haven't thought it through and the motivation is sexist.

because the stem cell thing is new - it only very recently got added to an already existent movement.
Wait... what? What do you mean, "already existent movement"? And how is something being newer a reason to apply less of what I mentioned to it?

and what lack of popular support?
Hmm? I thought I remembered from back just before the 2004 election something on the news about Bush passing a certain veto about stem cell research to boost PR...

stem cell research is massively approved of in every poll ever done.
... and what proof do you have of this statement?

it is even more popular than the pro-choice position is.
Well, it really doesn't seem to be. But if you can prove stem cell research to be more popular than the pro-life position in a way that explains the aforementioned comparisons then I guess that would show this thread to be meaningless...

how are those contradictory? they haven't thought it through and the motivation is sexist.
Ok, fair enough, you were saying both, I just got the mistaken impression that you were changing your position.

While I myself am in favour of legal abortion (well, at least up until the point in the pregnancy where we have plenty of scientific reason to believe the fetus would have a consciousness) I've noticed that sometimes opposition to abortion is associated with sexism. Why is it, then, that we don't see opposition to embryonic stem cell research associated with prejudice against those who have diseases ESCR has potential to cure?

Probably because a ban on embryonic stem cell research, while a bad idea, wouldn't force anyone to have their bodies used against their will.

In the same newspaper, there was a letter to the editor that repeatedly referred to anti-abortionists as "anti-choice"; it's one thing to talk about your own side as being "pro-choice" but when you label people anti-choice for believing a fetus to qualify as a person to have law intervene to protect, that's another case.

Not really. Even if you view an embryo/fetus as a person, it still doesn't have the right to use another person's body against her will any more than I have the right to use your body against yours. Only by denigrating women and giving the embryo/fetus more "rights" than her can you force continued pregnancy.


I can't understand the objections to this research. The stem cells scientists want to clone are already dead (frozen, sorry Walt Disney, we can't fix frozen)

This is patently incorrect. If the cells were dead, they'd be useless in research.

We can freeze cells and/or tissues and recover much of the cells intact. We always lose some, but some can be revived.

We cannot do the same for a whole person largely because different cells and tissues require widely varying freezing and thawing protocols.


Didn't the stem cell debate sort of end recently when a method of producing them without using fetal stem cells was invented? I don't think we need abortions to harvest stem cells anymore.

(a) Embryonic stem cells are not and have never been harvested through abortion. In fact, by the time an abortion is even possible, ESCs can no longer be isolated.

(b) No. The cells produced through genetic engineering are similar to actual ESCs, but they are not the same. Also, because of the genetic changes made and the dangers such changes introduce, they can never be used in a clinical setting. They are useful for some aspects of research, but actual ESCs are necessary as well.

I think he called the 'snowflake people' or 'snowflake children' or some other cute Pr-friently name.

Edit: After a bit of wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_children, he didn't coin the term. I still hold him responsible though. ;)

Me: "They're called 'snowflake children'."
Hubby: "Why, because they're all unique and white?"
*looks at picture*
"yup."

Just because you never hear or see tell of it, doesn't mean it "never" happens. To be fair, I don't specifically recall it either, but at least I don't rule out that something might have happened that I didn't hear or see... (or remember, for that matter) after all, it's kinda hard to prove a negative.

I think the point is that lots of people will say "Abortion is murder!"

Then you ask them what the punishment should be and some of them *might* list a punishment for the doctor. For the woman? You most often get nothing but crickets.

This makes it absolutely clear that they do not view abortion as murder. If they did, they'd be calling for the same punishments as murder.

Now, this is not to say that there isn't a single person out there who would call for those same punishments, but the fact of the matter is that most of the "Abortion is murder!" people don't.

How is that "sexist" in itself? I never said that someone who knows the consequences and takes the risks is a "dirty dirty whore" so don't go putting words in my mouth.

No, but that is the argument being made, whether the words are used or not. A woman who was raped is a good person who was victimized, so it's ok for her to "murder" her unborn child. But a woman who chose to have sex is not, so she has to be punished by baby.

The actual value of the embryo/fetus doesn't factor into the discussion. It is clear that the emrbyo/fetus itself doesn't hold value for the person making this argument, or it wouldn't matter how it got there, it's rights would still outweigh the woman's. Instead, the important issue to such people is whether or not she willingly had sex and has thus done something to strip her of her own rights to her body.

Except for those who are blocking embryonic stem cell research (which doesn't seem to have as much support as abortion) which is part of what this topic is about.

Even they generally don't really believe that blastocysts are human beings with all the associated rights therein. If they did, they would all be adamantly opposed to in vitro fertilization. If they did, there would be no hesitation in the "save Bob or save the blastocysts" scenario.

It's easy to say "I believe abortion is murder" or "I believe blastocysts are human persons" without really thinking about it. But, almost invariably, when you really start getting into the details with people who say such things, their actual beliefs simply don't line up with those statements. Instead, it becomes clear that they actually afford embryos/fetuses much less protection than born human beings, except in one instance - controlling a woman's body.

And that just happens to be what I think of unwanted pregnancies. But so long as one could argue that one "chose" to be pregnant, one can make the distinction. That said, as I pointed out, it's not that the anti-abortionists so much personally believe in the rape exception as are apparently more so compromising when it comes to people with exceptional circumstances.

Would they be equally compromising if a raped woman wanted to kill a rapist's born children?

If not, it is clear that they do not really think of the unborn in the same way as born children.

And yet, people aren't supporting ESCR just as much as abortion.

On the contrary. From what I've seen of polling and the like, there are far more people in favor of ESCR than those in favor of abortion.

A recent poll, even in GA, showed over 60% support for ESCR. I don't have a similar poll for abortion, but I would suspect that it would be less favorable.

the sexism is inherent in their position, and easily seen in their alleged justifications. in so far as there are people who hold the position for non-sexist reasons, they apparently have no impact on the movement and no standing in the argument.

So the women who oppose abortion are...what? Self-hating?

Sexism is not inherent in opposing abortion. It is prevalent, certainly, but not a defining rationale.

So the women who oppose abortion are...what? Self-hating?

Were the women who opposed the women's suffrage movement self-hating?

How about the women in tribal societies who perform FGM on their daughters?

It is entirely possible for women to hold to sexist viewpoints that subjugate themselves and other women.

I think some are self-hating; others are just extremely myopic. Because THEY wouldn't necessarily do a certain thing, or support a certain thing, they don't believe that there may be other women who truly need the option.

Of course, that goes for most people who support most forms of prohibition. It personally makes THEM feel good to deny others certain freedoms, as they believe it will make their society better or more stable, and therefore don't think through the consequences such action will have.

Self-loathing, busybody, holier-than-thou - take your pick.

Probably because a ban on embryonic stem cell research, while a bad idea, wouldn't force anyone to have their bodies used against their will.
But it would still cause people to have diseases continuously damaging their health against their will. One could argue that a lack of ESCR at most means the disease isn't being actively stopped, but that's kinda arbitrary since a lack of abortion simply means the unwanted pregnancy isn't being actively stopped.

Even if you view an embryo/fetus as a person, it still doesn't have the right to use another person's body against her will any more than I have the right to use your body against yours.
If an embryo/fetus is a person, then their right to life trumps another person's right to be free from a parasite.

Only by denigrating women and giving the embryo/fetus more "rights" than her can you force continued pregnancy.
Again, the fetus wouldn't have "more" rights than her; IF it's a person then it's one person's right to life vs. another person's right to be free from a parasite.

But it would still cause people to have diseases continuously damaging their health against their will. One could argue that a lack of ESCR at most means the disease isn't being actively stopped, but that's kinda arbitrary since a lack of abortion simply means the unwanted pregnancy isn't being actively stopped.

...the difference still being that no one's body is being used against their will with a lack of ESCR, while it is with forced pregnancy.

If an embryo/fetus is a person, then their right to life trumps another person's right to be free from a parasite.

No, it doesn't. No individual's right to life gives them the right to another person's body.

If I am dying and I need blood or an organ, can I force someone else to donate it? Can I put someone into slave labor to pay for it?

Of course not. My right to life does not extend to the use of other's bodies.

Again, the fetus wouldn't have "more" rights than her; IF it's a person then it's one person's right to life vs. another person's right to be free from a parasite.

Wrong. The law makes it very clear that no human being has rights over another person's body. Giving the embryo/fetus that right would be giving it more rights than any other human being has and stripping women of theirs.

It is not, in fact, possible to give an embryo "rights", because embryos do not have any capacity to make choices.

...the difference still being that no one's body is being used against their will with a lack of ESCR, while it is with forced pregnancy.
What do you mean, "used"? If you mean the fetus is "using" the woman's body, the fetus can't help that. I have type 1 diabetes against my will, since I didn't choose to get it. Let's say I were to consider my disease a parasite; if scientists can't "kill" embryos to get rid of the parasite on my body, why can doctors "kill" a fetus to get rid of the parasite on an unwillingly pregnant woman's body? Now of course I'm not talking in current legal terms, but in popular-opinion-apparent-contradiction terms.

If I am dying and I need blood or an organ, can I force someone else to donate it? Can I put someone into slave labor to pay for it?
While I'm not sure what I think of this scenario, I do believe that if it's a matter of life and death and hypothetically you need such drastic measures, then maybe you should, but then again, we don't live in "hypothetical-land" anyway; first things first, make sure you need more blood and organs to save more lives before resorting to that. Second, take the blood and organs from people with less rights in our society first, like violent criminals. Third, try having public campaigns to pay people for blood and organs (this is beginning to sound more and more like NS-game-issues o.o) and if all alternative measures turn out not to work, then, well, maybe you gotta do what you gotta do to save lives....

As for paying for it, again, try alternatives first. There's plenty of wasteful spending in the public budget to cut to pay for it, like microscopes for every biology student in high school when they only use them once a year. And let's not forget the idea of, dare I say it, RAISING TAXES instead of forcing someone into slave labour. But if it comes to that, again, criminals first, etc...

That said, I hadn't thought much about that issue much before, (again, outside of NS-game-issues) and I don't know much about the state of different societies' supplies of blood and organs, so I'm not necessarily commited to either side of that debate.

A recent poll, even in GA, showed over 60% support for ESCR.
What's GA? Do you have a link about what you're referring to? Or a picture of a newspaper/magazine article about it? Where did you hear about this, and what makes you think whatever poll "GA" did represents a group proportional to popular opinion as a whole?

You'd think that if people were in favour of ESCR they'd be MORE inclined to vote leaders who were in favour of ESCR. But I thought there was something on the news a couple years ago about Bush boosting his PR by passing some ANTI-ESCR bill...

What's GA?

=georgia, the southern usian state.

You'd think that if people were in favour of ESCR they'd be MORE inclined to vote leaders who were in favour of ESCR. But I thought there was something on the news a couple years ago about Bush boosting his PR by passing some ANTI-ESCR bill...

http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm#Stem
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Jan. 16-19, 2007. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.
"Do you support or oppose embryonic stem cell research?"

1/16-19/07 61% support, 31% oppose, 8% unsure
6/2-5/05 59% support, 33% oppose, 8% unsure
4/21-24/05 63% support, 28% oppose, 9% unsure

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=488
"In 2001, a Harris Poll reported that a 3-to-1 majority believed that stem cell research should be allowed. Three years later, a new Harris Poll finds that this majority supporting stem cell research has increased to more than 6-to-1.
...
The majority who believe that stem cell research should be allowed has increased from 61% to 21% in favor in 2001 to 73% to 11% in favor now."

vs abortion:

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
where support hovers around a 56ish% in favor to 43ish% opposed

What do you mean, "used"? If you mean the fetus is "using" the woman's body, the fetus can't help that.

It doesn't matter if it can help it. Her body is providing all of its sustenance, getting rid of its wastes, and is housing it. If she chooses not to allow it to do so, it doesn't have any right to stay. The fact that it cannot survive otherwise is unfortunate, but not a concern in determining the woman's rights to determine the use of her own body.

I have type 1 diabetes against my will, since I didn't choose to get it.

Indeed. And if we had a way to completely stop the effects of your disease, it would be up to you whether or not to seek that treatment. And it is up to you what treatment you will and will not seek at this point.

Let's say I were to consider my disease a parasite;

You can "consider" it that all you want. It isn't. It doesn't meet the definition of the word.

if scientists can't "kill" embryos to get rid of the parasite on my body, why can doctors "kill" a fetus to get rid of the parasite on an unwillingly pregnant woman's body? Now of course I'm not talking in current legal terms, but in popular-opinion-apparent-contradiction terms.

Again, your body is not being used against your will. Your own body is doing this to you.

Should we do everything we can to help you? Absolutely! But it isn't the same logic as allowing a woman to determine the use of her own body.

While I'm not sure what I think of this scenario, I do believe that if it's a matter of life and death and hypothetically you need such drastic measures, then maybe you should, but then again, we don't live in "hypothetical-land" anyway; first things first, make sure you need more blood and organs to save more lives before resorting to that. Second, take the blood and organs from people with less rights in our society first, like violent criminals. Third, try having public campaigns to pay people for blood and organs (this is beginning to sound more and more like NS-game-issues o.o) and if all alternative measures turn out not to work, then, well, maybe you gotta do what you gotta do to save lives....

Support for forced "donation" of blood and organs is not something I can get behind, no matter what the supply problems are (they are vast) and no matter what the person has done (convicted felons do not and should not lose rights over their own medical decisions).

As for paying for blood/organs, it is a catastrophically bad idea. The people who end up doing it in that situation are not only the most marginalized in our society anyways, they are also quite often the most at risk for various diseases that could be passed through such donations. And if you're offering much-needed money for the donations, they're much more likely to lie about diseases or risk factors.

What's GA?

Georgia. A rather conservative state in the US.

Do you have a link about what you're referring to? Or a picture of a newspaper/magazine article about it? Where did you hear about this, and what makes you think whatever poll "GA" did represents a group proportional to popular opinion as a whole?

Unfortunately, I don't have a link, although I do have the full poll results around here somewhere. I know about it because my adviser was a member of the organization that paid for it to be carried out. I know that it represents a proportional group because that information was gathered - religious affiliation, party affiliation, age, etc. were all part of the poll so that the people running the polling could be sure that they had an accurate cross section of the population.

You'd think that if people were in favour of ESCR they'd be MORE inclined to vote leaders who were in favour of ESCR. But I thought there was something on the news a couple years ago about Bush boosting his PR by passing some ANTI-ESCR bill...

Many people are in favor of ESCR, but not as vocal about it as the opposition, which makes the opposition seem larger than it is. Bush's base is the small far-right fundamentalist Christian group, so anything he does to pander to them boosts him up in their eyes.

He didn't pass an anti-ESCR bill, by the way. He has twice vetoed a bill that would have expanded funding for ESCR research. The people did vote in leaders who are in favor of ESCR, but Bush has been blocking their will.

It sounds like I could make money if I partnered with a woman who was interested in business.

I could constantly impregnate her, and she could constantly have abortions for the specific reason of selling stem cells to researchers.

It sounds like I could make money if I partnered with a woman who was interested in business.

I could constantly impregnate her, and she could constantly have abortions for the specific reason of selling stem cells to researchers.

If only I were a woman...

If only I were a woman...

Technically, a young healthy woman can make quite a bit being a surrogate mother. Adding stem cell sales as the output of abortion can only add to the business potential.

It sounds like I could make money if I partnered with a woman who was interested in business.

I could constantly impregnate her, and she could constantly have abortions for the specific reason of selling stem cells to researchers.

...except for the teeny tiny little problem that stem cells aren't obtained that way...

...except for the teeny tiny little problem that stem cells aren't obtained that way...

They could. I'm sure that's a workable way, and should be legalized if possible.

Embryonic stem cell lines (ES cell lines) are cultures of cells derived from the epiblast tissue of the inner cell mass (ICM) of a blastocyst or earlier morula stage embryos. A blastocyst is an early stage embryo—approximately four to five days old in humans and consisting of 50–150 cells.

So, I could impregnate a woman, wait a few days, go in and retrieve the blastocyst - an abortion.

Looks like I could make a production line of women, and run around impregnating them to make blastocysts.

They could. I'm sure that's a workable way, and should be legalized if possible.

Embryonic stem cells cannot be obtained from the product of an abortion. They are obtained from a blastocyst, which is a pre-implantation embryo. By the time the woman would even be pregnant, it is too late to isolate ESCs.

There are stem cells that can be obtained from fetal tissue or later stage embryos, but they are more lineage-specific. They are difficult to obtain (given the destruction of the tissue that generally occurs in abortion procedures) and cannot be purchased from a woman any more than blood or organs can.

Embryonic stem cell lines (ES cell lines) are cultures of cells derived from the epiblast tissue of the inner cell mass (ICM) of a blastocyst or earlier morula stage embryos. A blastocyst is an early stage embryo—approximately four to five days old in humans and consisting of 50–150 cells.

So, I could impregnate a woman, wait a few days, go in and retrieve the blastocyst - an abortion.

Looks like I could make a production line of women, and run around impregnating them to make blastocysts.

(a) As I already pointed out, a blastocyst is a pre-implantation embryo. Even if the blastocyst were in a woman, she would not yet be pregnant. As such, an abortion procedure would be useless.

(b) We have no method for obtaining an intact blastocyst from a woman's body, even if we had a way of definitively knowing it was there.

It doesn't matter if it can help it. Her body is providing all of its sustenance, getting rid of its wastes, and is housing it. If she chooses not to allow it to do so, it doesn't have any right to stay.
And during the time when the parents are raising the child, they're providing for the child, and paying for housing him/herm, etc... so if the parents choose not to allow him/her to do so, would you say the child doesn't have any right to stay?

And it is up to you what treatment you will and will not seek at this point.
I go with the treatment my doctor recommends. (And are you saying there's different ways of treating type 1 diabetes? If so I haven't heard of them) But this treatment still doesn't stop the constant possibility that if my blood sugar goes too low I could go unconscious (which could kill me... and even if not it could still do brain damage) and if it stays too high for too long I could go blind. Keeping it in the healthy range is easier said than done, and it is no consequence of my own actions that I'm in this situation in the first place.

You can "consider" it that all you want. It isn't. It doesn't meet the definition of the word.
I guess "parasite equivalent" would've been a better way of putting it then.

and no matter what the person has done (convicted felons do not and should not lose rights over their own medical decisions).
I take it you're against the death penalty as well, then?

As for paying for blood/organs, it is a catastrophically bad idea. The people who end up doing it in that situation are not only the most marginalized in our society anyways
Marginalized as in the poor? Fine, but one thing I'd like to point out (granted I don't know much about the situation) that they still nonetheless choose to give them, whereas people in the hospital (who are, like the poor, disadvantaged) who need blood and organs don't choose not to have them.

And if you're offering much-needed money for the donations, they're much more likely to lie about diseases or risk factors.
You never know what reasons people other than them might have for lying; shouldn't the focus be on trying to protect the blood and organ services from lies in the first place? Do they use lie detectors before donation?

Many people are in favor of ESCR, but not as vocal about it as the opposition, which makes the opposition seem larger than it is.
Come to think of it, I guess that makes sense, such a scenario sounds kinda familiar...

Bush's base is the small far-right fundamentalist Christian group, so anything he does to pander to them boosts him up in their eyes.
... if that group is so small, why did he get re-elected?

He didn't pass an anti-ESCR bill, by the way. He has twice vetoed a bill that would have expanded funding for ESCR research.
Actually, well, that's kinda what I meant, I guess it's just that my memory of what I heard about that was kinda blurred.

The people did vote in leaders who are in favor of ESCR, but Bush has been blocking their will.
o.o Really? Interesting... if that's the case then in a way I'm on the same side as popular opinion on this one...

Come to think of it, I guess my insisting that ESCR isn't popular is just part of a habit of mine that I tend to have a bit of a false dichotomy between what's popular and what I like, when I, granted, probably don't have much of a basis for it...

And during the time when the parents are raising the child, they're providing for the child, and paying for housing him/herm, etc... so if the parents choose not to allow him/her to do so, would you say the child doesn't have any right to stay?

(a) Housing, etc. does not involve use of another's body. A better question, if you're really looking for a post-birth equivalent, would be: Does the child have the right to breastfeed?

The answer, of course, is no. A woman who chooses not to breastfeed can make that choice, even though it is not the best thing for the child.

Or, another one: does the child have the right to a bone marrow/blood/organ donation from the parents? The answer is no. Even if the child will die without such a donation, the parents have the legal right to refuse.

(b) Actually, yes. If the parents choose not to keep the child, they can sign away custody - put the child up for adoption.

I go with the treatment my doctor recommends. (And are you saying there's different ways of treating type 1 diabetes? If so I haven't heard of them) But this treatment still doesn't stop the constant possibility that if my blood sugar goes too low I could go unconscious (which could kill me... and even if not it could still do brain damage) and if it stays too high for too long I could go blind. Keeping it in the healthy range is easier said than done, and it is no consequence of my own actions that I'm in this situation in the first place.

I'm not saying your disease is easy. But it isn't the consequence of you being used by another human being, so there really isn't a good comparison between it and pregnancy.

You cannot be prevented from seeking the best possible known treatment for your disease. If you chose not to seek treatment, no one could force you to receive it.

Your medical choices are your own, just as a pregnant woman's choices are her own.

I guess "parasite equivalent" would've been a better way of putting it then.

No, it wouldn't. Your disease state has nothing whatsoever to do with a parasite.

I take it you're against the death penalty as well, then?

Yes.



Irrelevant. Nobody, no matter how sick, has the right to another's body. And you don't have the right to coerce people into letting you use it either.

If I choose to give it to allow someone to use my body, it should be an informed decision made without coercion or pressure.

We've seen the results of paying for something that seems as simple as blood donation - which is why it is now illegal. Doing it for organ donation would be disastrous.

[quote]You never know what reasons people other than them might have for lying; shouldn't the focus be on trying to protect the blood and organ services from lies in the first place? Do they use lie detectors before donation?

No, and doing so would be cost-prohibitive enough to limit donations even further.

We can't protect from lies. What we can do is refrain from making it lucrative to lie and check the products as carefully as we can.

Come to think of it, I guess that makes sense, such a scenario sounds kinda familiar...

Indeed.

... if that group is so small, why did he get re-elected?

Because Kerry was a bad choice for the Dems to put up against him and much of the election hinged on national security issues and swiftboat ads. ESCR was not a big issue in the 2004 presidential election. It was a larger issue in the 2006 elections, and many Democrats got elected to office.

Actually, well, that's kinda what I meant, I guess it's just that my memory of what I heard about that was kinda blurred.

o.o Really? Interesting... if that's the case then in a way I'm on the same side as popular opinion on this one...

Come to think of it, I guess my insisting that ESCR isn't popular is just part of a habit of mine that I tend to have a bit of a false dichotomy between what's popular and what I like, when I, granted, probably don't have much of a basis for it...

=)

Part of the problem is that, like I said, the opposition are loudmouths. They make people think they're a much larger group than they are.

(a) Housing, etc. does not involve use of another's body.
A questionable assumption, at most; it would cost more to pay for the child's needs as well as your own than just your own; therefore, you would need to work more, therefore your body would be in the workplace more, being used to do the work to pay for the child's needs. Therefore the child is technically using the parents' bodies...

(b) Actually, yes. If the parents choose not to keep the child, they can sign away custody - put the child up for adoption.
That's different, since it will not kill the child...

No, it wouldn't. Your disease state has nothing whatsoever to do with a parasite.
The effect is the same, so how is the cause relevant?

Irrelevant. Nobody, no matter how sick, has the right to another's body. And you don't have the right to coerce people into letting you use it either.
But what I wasn't talking about ISN'T coercion. Note that I pointed out how "they still nonetheless choose to give them" when they're payed to do so. Even within the "nobody has the right to another's body" argument, those people are being given it in this case.

Because Kerry was a bad choice for the Dems to put up against him
Oh please. Bush and Kerry weren't the only options Americans had for president. They had Nader, they had Badnarik, etc... so whatever was wrong with Kerry was by no means a justification to vote Bush.

You never know what reasons people other than them might have for lying; shouldn't the focus be on trying to protect the blood and organ services from lies in the first place? Do they use lie detectors before donation?

I imagine that the natural nervousness of anyone about to donate blood or an organ would render most lie-detectors useless anyway. I'm a blood donor now but I'd stop giving if I was humiliated by being put on a lie-detector each time.