During the Bush Administration I wrote in opposition to the ban of federally supported research using fetal tissue stem cells. At the time, my father was dying for Parkinson’s — just one of millions of people who were suffering from conditions and diseases that could be cured or relieved with the help of such research. Now, The Human Fetal Tissue Research Ethics Advisory Board, appointed by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar, has blocked virtually every application for fetal tissue research to the HHS on ethical grounds. The result is the same. It is an effective ban disguised as an ethics review and the result is the lost of vital time and research for millions who are suffering in this country. It also places a political chokehold on academic work that will put our country at a disadvantage with virtually every other country pursuing new cures and treatments based on fetal tissue research.
Of the 15 members on the board, 10 reported have pronounced opposition to abortion fetal tissue research, and stem cell research. The board is chaired by Paige Comstock Cunningham, the interim president of Taylor University, an evangelical Christian university in Upland, Indiana.
Only one is a clear advocate for fetal tissue research. It is therefore not surprising that the board yesterday recommended barring all but one in a group of applications to do medical research using human fetal tissue donated after elective abortions. It is important to note that all of these applications from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), were already approved on a scientific basis as promising and well based in science.
The only proposal that passed by a nine-to-six vote was an attempt to develop an alternative to human fetal tissue.
I understand the deep-seated opposition to abortion by many in the country. It is a national debate that continues to rage. However, abortion is legal and protected in this country. Women do not get abortions in order to donate fetal tissue. This science uses donated material to try to save others rather than discarding the material. If you oppose abortion, we have a political system to oppose it and fight for change. This is using science as a surrogate for politics. The fact is that we have this material which will be discarded at hospitals but can be used to help others with debilitating and lethal conditions. At a time when we are losing so many to Covit-19, we do not need our government closing avenues for valuable new treatment and cures for a wide variety of illnesses.
Congress should act to prevent medical science from becoming “politics by other means” at the HHS.
Need body parts? China cornered this market!
China’s organ transplant trade is worth $1 billion a year
Some of the more than 1.5 million detainees in Chinese prison camps are being killed for their organs to serve a booming transplant trade that is worth some $1 billion a year.
I have to make one thing clear, abortion was not legalized, it’s anti laws are merely not being enforced by the courts……….. no state legislation has as of yet to legalize abortion. There are some states that have not addressed abortion and it is legal in the sense that it has not been made illegal, but the supreme court decision is not legally binding for any laws against abortion. The supreme court in its decision should have referred it back to state issues to let the states decide for themselves as the federal government has no jurisdiction in such matters. The supreme court’s decision also made all of these other problems that pop up a murky area for ethics as well, if anything they made a bad problem worse by not following the constitution.
short version: abortion is only “legal” because the supreme court did not follow the constitution, therefore abortion is only legal in states that do not have explicit bans on abortion. That is where we sit legally on the issue.
Now as for what I would like to see done, I’d like to have our nation have a unified stance on the issue through legislation, instead of it being used like a political football, so that things like stem cell research can be cleared up ethically. I’d hope that the abortion stance would for it to be allowed in extreme conditions as such that the life of the mother is at stake, and have clear distinctions that when a woman’s egg is fertilized, it doesnt became a bear or a pterodactyl, but a baby and that the baby’s life begins as conception, because that is the science of it.
Your claim that “the supreme court decision is not legally binding for any laws against abortion” is false.
For the record, “when a woman’s egg is fertilized,” it most often dies of natural causes, often prior to implantation. That a zygote is alive does not make it a person.
Even if you believe that life begins at conception, you’re faced with biological complexities:
For conjoined identical twins, when did the life of the second twin begin: at conception? during the uncompleted splitting stage?
For people who develop from two embryos that merge (resulting in chimerism), when did the life of that person begin: at conception of zygote #1? at conception of zygote #2? at the merging of the two blastocysts?
I think the “beginning of life” is meaningless. The egg is biologically alive, the sperm is biologically alive. There is no “beginning” (except when the species first emerged), only continuation of life. For me, the question is not when “life” begins, but what is the beginning of *personhood*. And just as personhood ends at the cessation of a specific kind of brain activity, it cannot begin prior to the emergence of that same sort of brain activity.
Please show an example of a sperm being alive and reproducing more sperm.
“Alive” isn’t a synonym for “capable of reproduction.” I didn’t claim that they’re organisms (they aren’t), but that doesn’t mean that they’re not alive.
Lots of things are alive that aren’t organisms and aren’t capable of reproduction. For example, your blood cells are alive. If they weren’t, they couldn’t transport oxygen to you and carry CO2 away. But blood cells aren’t organisms and don’t reproduce; they’re produced in our bone marrow, live for a time, and then die. If a cell is capable of cellular homeostasis, cellular respiration, …, it’s alive. If the egg and sperm weren’t themselves alive, then they’d be incapable of merging into a living zygote. Life only emerged from non-life millions of years ago in abiogenesis.
There is a big difference between something that has only half of the human genetic code and can not replicate vs a complete human cell that is human life.
Jim, if you’re going to get literal here, the sperm in a used condom is also ‘human life’. It’s all a question of how literal you want to get.
My claim was “the sperm is biologically alive.” That’s a true statement, despite the sperm being a haploid cell. You’re the one trying to substitute “human life” for “biologically alive.” Those phrases aren’t synonyms.
A living human blood cell, a living human liver cell, a living human brain cell, a living human heart cell, a living human sperm cell, … is each “a complete human cell.” “Complete human cell” is not a synonym for “human life.” More to the point, none of these cells, including a human zygote, is a person, and the majority of human zygotes are unable to develop into persons — a majority die (many prior to implantation and others later) of natural causes before reaching viability.
The biology here is more complex than a lot of people want to deal with.
You are correct. I am referring to human life. Human life has value. Although, I would still argue that a sperm or egg is not a complete human cell since it does not contain the full DNA. That being written, please define what is a person. To me, a fertilized egg is a person. The fact that some naturally do not get to develop does not justify killing them purposefully through abortion.
Personhood is a legal construct. It begins at birth and ends at either cardiac death or brain death. If embryos were legal persons, they’d have to be counted in the U.S. Census, which requires that all persons be counted. I can see it now: one frozen embryo storage facility would make up a big part of the population for a few congressional districts.
“To me, a fertilized egg is a person”
But our laws don’t agree. And you cannot force someone else to abide by your personal beliefs.
Do you want our laws to change so that embryos — frozen and non-frozen — are counted in the Census?
“The fact that some naturally do not get to develop …”
Not just “some,” most. If you want all embryos counted in the Census, you’d have to require all sexually active women (prior to menopause) to be testing themselves all the time to know whether or not there’s an embryo there, given that so many die without a woman even knowing she was pregnant.
BTW, if you consider a fertilized egg to be a person, do consider conjoined twins to be one person (because there was only one fertilized egg) or two, and why?
And for a person who develops from two embryos that merge (resulting in genetic chimerism), do you consider that person to be one person or two (since there were two fertilized eggs), and why?
Research of this type doesn’t have to be done by the federal government. I believe far more is done privately and it can also be done by the states so the research occurs with or without federal funding. Additionally fetal research dollars involve only a tiny fraction of the research since the vast bulk of it is done on stem cells.
Why does the left have to impose its will (with force) on everyone else?
We’re back to this “left vs. everyone else” rhetoric, preached by Fox News, Limbaugh and Breitbart and faithfully believed by the disciples. For the record, once again, most Americans: 1. did not vote for Trump, 3 million more voted for Hillary Clinton 2. do not support Trump, and haven’t since he started occupying our White House illegally because Russia helped him cheat, In fact, Trump has set a record for presidential disapproval in the history of presidential polling. 3. want him gone. There is no “left vs. everyone else”. You Trumpsters are the oddballs. To the point of this piece, where do Trumpsters get off imposing their will on everyone else?
“We’re back to this “left vs. everyone else” rhetoric, preached by Fox News, Limbaugh and Breitbart and faithfully believed by the disciples.”
What does this have to do with what you are responding to?
It appears that you do not believe research of this type can be done privately. That is where the bulk of research is done.
It appears that you think the federal government research using fetal remains is the predominent portion of the research done? It’s a tiny fraction of the research since the vast majority is done on stem cells. That tiny bit of research is not being prohibited and can be moved to the private sector, stem cells or might not even be that useful. Not everything ended up lacking approval.
What you have done is demonstrate your ignorance along with your lockstep movements with the left.
Wow!
Some in society have advanced so far forward they have reverted back to child sacrifice to Molock & they can’t see it or understand it.
Anyway, you cult members still have your Baby Back Ribs so quit kvetching.
Earlier this year there was hardly a word spoken as the unconstitutional agency , the FDA, banned the use of a person from using their own stem cells in medical procedures.
“the FDA, banned the use of a person from using their own stem cells in medical procedures.”
Is this true?
Yes, it’s true.
The David Knight show, one of some of infowars shows, he had some of the stem cell researchers on that were working on that angle of research.
It was stop by the FDA about 6 months ago. I remember because I was trying to find out new research info about it from my wife’s oncologist just about all last year.
It’s amazing to me just how tight the lock down on certain people’s views & information by the old deep state is. Now I see that sensoring happening here everyday. The New media reports some of it. I just can’t read it all.
Anyway, banned.video has those archives of David Knights show. Pull the sight up, search & dig in. There’s a list with his name/shows on the left side of the page.
Google search & the rest of big tech/Med Tech sensors all this type info, good luck finding much there unless you look past page 5 million plus.
Billions of dollars are available for funding research in both the not-for-profit and for profit sectors. Why does the federal government need to fund this?
Jonathan Turley wrote, “It is an effective ban disguised as an ethics review and the result is the lost of vital time and research for millions who are suffering in this country.”
“Effective ban”? Really Jonathan? You’re engaging in unethical fear mongering hyperbole. Just because the Federal Government doesn’t choose to fund something doesn’t mean it’s an effective ban.
Jonathan Turley wrote, “It also places a political chokehold on academic work that will put our country at a disadvantage with virtually every other country pursuing new cures and treatments based on fetal tissue research.”
I disagree.
The federal government is not, and should not be, the only source for medical research funding. This is a free market system and researchers can use that free market to obtain the dollars they want for their research based on the merits of their proposals.
Society makes ‘board room’ decisions in almost every facet of its being. Building codes only respond to the deaths caused by their inadequate safety measures. People burn to death and then the ‘board’ responds. The speed limit is a compromise between getting somewhere a few minutes sooner and lives. More people die from drugs due to the stupidity of the War on Drugs than when drug abuse is seen as a disease and not a crime. Statistics don’t lie. Since abortion became legal there have been abuses tied to a cavalier approach to prevention. However, there has been a drastic decline in deaths of women who had to seek abortions when it was illegal.
There is a certain but undeniable hypocrisy in a position that demands rights that result in the deaths of innocents but denies rights that saves lives. A couple generations ago a woman who found herself pregnant could seek an illegal and dangerous abortion or be labeled by society in any one of several negative terms. The man was a ‘rake’. The woman was fallen. Society has evolved for the better allowing abortions. This is the right direction. The arguments should focus on degrees and not absolutes.
There is a certain but undeniable hypocrisy in a position that refuses society’s rights to teach sex education and offer medical and counseling advice to young people regarding the basic causes of abortions yet rails at the results. It is the same rabid bible thumper that preaches abstinence instead of knowledge that attempts to force women backwards.
Abortion is a horrible thing. However, much of what society does is horrible. Society should seek to reduce the demand for abortion through education. When a woman seeks an abortion, she should have every medical facility available for a safe procedure minus the ethical hypocrisies and moral damnation.
“Building codes only respond to the deaths caused by their inadequate safety measures. People burn to death and then the ‘board’ responds.”
That is incorrect, Isaac.
https://www.nfpa.org/Codes-and-Standards/Standards-development-process/How-the-process-works
Nope, Rhodes, that is correct. I worked as an architect and builder for thirty plus years. On the West Coast after each earthquake building codes got stricter. After the Oakland fire that destroyed over 3,000 residences and took over 20 lives, the fire codes got stricter and the brush clearing rules stricter. Electrical codes often change after a major fire attributed to electrical reasons. It is human nature to respond or be reactive rather than proactive. On rare occasions humans are proactive but if history illustrates one thing it is that humans make the same mistake many times before putting safeguards in place, more often than not. We have a loser President whose credo is wait and see when approached with trifles such as Covid-19. Over 150,000 deaths later and a sewered economy, we are all waiting to see. Trump and his Daddy had to be sued and fined before they stopped restricting renters by race. It’s just like that. In November Americans have an opportunity to be proactive, progressive, intelligent, again.
I’ve been in the Passive Fire Protection business for 20 years, Isaac.
You falsely claimed that; “Building codes only respond to the deaths caused by their inadequate safety measures”.
Yes, some new building codes are the result of what was learned through earthquakes, fires, etc. But you speciously claimed that all building codes “only” exist as a result of same. That is simply not true.
At any rate, your analogy was piss poor anyway.
Your Party now has a bizarre dystopian Platform that condones multiple facets of death and violence. As well as embracing an acute cancel culture form of bigotry.
As a lifelong independent, I can tell you that will not bode well for it in November.
“However, there has been a drastic decline in deaths of women who had to seek abortions when it was illegal.”
And orders of magnitude increases of deaths caused by abortion. So has all of this sex education caused unwanted pregnancy to end or the practice of killing life of value?
Jim22
The issue of sex education is the lack of it. In many parts of the world the abortion rate is much higher than in the US. Religions, lack of education, poverty, and other socio-economic factors make it impossible to compare most of these countries rationally with the US. However, in Western Europe with the closest socio-economic conditions to the US, sex education is far more open and less hindered by moral and ethical arguments. The abortion rate is 60% of what it is in the US. When a French girl starts dating, her mother takes her to the doctor and introduces her to birth control. It is understood that girls will be girls and boys will be boys. Typically the argument in the US is abstinence and/or no conversations. History is proving that absolute responses to problems such as unwanted pregnancies and drug abuse are not working. Accepting the condition and openly dealing with it seems to be the more successful approach. Again, it is telling that the staunchest opponents of abortion are also the staunchest opponents of birth control, and dealing openly with sex.
On a lighter not, google Peter Cook and Dudley Moore ‘A bit of a chat’
I find it absolutely ridiculous that you want to blame this on religion. The public education I got, were introduced to sex ed in 5th grade. Then we had health class in 7th and 10th grade where contraception was well discussed. So this perception you have that U.S. kids have only been taught about abstinence is pure b.s. You are right about boys will be boys and girls will be boys because even with this knowledge they still don’t use it. Sex ed is a failure. Partly because there is no repercussion for getting pregnant due to abortion.
The number of women who died from infection and sepsis due to illegal abortion was running at about 40 a year during the post war period.
Versus how many millions of human life killed through abortion…
Looking Forward to the End of Humanity
Covid-19 has spotlighted the promise and peril of ‘transhumanism,’ the idea of using technology to overcome sickness, aging and death.
By Adam Kirsch
June 20, 2020 12:01 am ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/looking-forward-to-the-end-of-humanity-11592625661
This is one of the toughest issues to address and that is because “moderation” is missing from the equation. One side wants “no abortions,” and the other side wants “no limit to abortions.” But, I will give credit to many Republicans, who at least don’t want abortions after 20 weeks, and I do have a real problem with the Democrats who consider it to be fine to abort a “born” child after it has left the mother’s womb.
The fact is that there are many abortions being done every day, and there are many people with diseases and physical ailments that they suffer with every day.
I have heard arguments that adult stem cells work better than infant stem cells, and I have heard the opposite as being true.
If infant stem cells work better to treat the problems of the living, I am fine with using them, rather than tossing them into garbage bins. But, if they are not useful for the living than why make this an issue which comes up every four years?
Your claim that “the other side wants ‘no limit to abortions’” is false. The vast majority of people who are pro-choice believe that elective abortions should be illegal after viability, unless the mother’s life or health are seriously endangered or the fetus is diagnosed with a condition like anencephaly that’s incompatible with life after birth (in which case it isn’t actually viable).
“the Democrats who consider it to be fine to abort a “born” child”
Can you quote one, or are you imagining this?
ralph northam, governor of virginia, also many but thankfully not the majority in the virginia legislature, as well as the majorities in the new york and conneticut legislatures…….. this is why the whole black face thing was put on northam a day after he said something like this, better to be racist than a baby killer in the eyes of the public. That is just off the top of my head, if I dug I would find many more.
>>“the Democrats who consider it to be fine to abort a “born” child”
>Can you quote one, or are you imagining this?”
This makes democrat thinking quite clear.
—-
Dems block ‘born alive’ bill to provide medical care to infants who survive failed abortions
“The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would have required that “any health care practitioner present” at the time of a birth “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-to-vote-on-born-alive-bill-to-protect-infants-who-survive-a-failed-abortion
QUESTION 1: If research facilities are denied federal funding dollars for their research that doesn’t stop them from applying for private funding grants, does it?
QUESTION 2: My understanding is that there is not an actual “ban” on this kind of research, is that correct?
I see today you’ve elected to act as a press agent for ghouls employed in medical research.
“This material” that’s kinda cold. How about if your son had some “material” in his arm that may help someone. Would it be OK if we amputated his arm to grind up to extract whatever we think might be of value? I don’t know, where do we draw the line?
I draw the line at brain activity of the sort that’s used in assessing brain death.
If Turley’s son had a beating heart but were brain dead (say, after a car accident), it would be entirely acceptable for Turley to donate material from his son’s body; this regularly occurs with beating heart organ donation.
And his son is not literally inside a woman’s body, reliant on her organs and affecting her health. That woman should have a choice about whether to allow an embryo or early stage fetus to use her body.
People who object to abortion should focus on developing an artificial womb. Then instead of abortion, the embryo or fetus can be transferred to the artificial womb, and the people who want to keep that embryo/fetus alive can care for it.
“And his son is not literally inside a woman’s body, reliant on her organs and affecting her health. That woman should have a choice about whether to allow an embryo or early stage fetus to use her body.”
She did have a choice. Don’t get pregnant.
Also, a new born is reliant on the parents for survival. Should they be able to kill a new born? Why should they suddenly have to become responsible for their decision? All life of value matters.
“She did have a choice. Don’t get pregnant.”
So you think women should be celibate except when they want to become pregnant? When men refrain from sex except when they want to have a child, then they can ask women to as well.
And do you think women are raped by choice?
Do you think that women encounter pregnancy-related medical problems by choice? or that they should be forced to carry a fetus with a condition that’s incompatible with life after birth, only to watch the newborn die after birth? (I’m not saying women should be forced to abort in that situation. I’m saying that it should be their choice to make.)
You want to make simple distinctions when the situation isn’t simple.
“a new born is reliant on the parents for survival.”
No, a new born is reliant on **people** for survival, but those people do not have to be “the parents” (as is clear when a newborn is given up for adoption). Moreover, that newborn is NOT using anyone else’s lungs to obtain oxygen, is NOT using anyone else’s liver or kidneys or …, so your attempted analogy isn’t actually analogous to what I said: “literally inside a woman’s body, reliant on her organs and affecting her health.”
Women can do whatever they want, but getting pregnant does not give them the right to kill.
You are bringing up issues that make up a very small percentage of the millions of aborted life of value.
“Moreover, that newborn is NOT using anyone else’s lungs to obtain oxygen, is NOT using anyone else’s liver or kidneys or”
Only because you are using a narrow view of use. I have to stay alive to support a new born. To do this I use all my organs. So, in an indirect way, yes, the newborn is using my resources. So should I be able to terminate this leach because it is inconvenient to me?
Whether you like it or not, women have a right to an abortion prior to viability, so yes, they do have “the right to kill” an embryo or pre-viable fetus.
You claim “You are bringing up issues that make up a very small percentage,” but no, when I asked “So you think women should be celibate except when they want to become pregnant?,” that’s not a question about a “very small percentage” of women. Again: when men refrain from sex except when they want to have a child, then they can ask women to as well.
As for “in an indirect way, yes, the newborn is using my resources,” you’re being disingenuous. I clearly wasn’t talking about indirect use. I was talking about direct use, and about embryos/fetuses, not newborns: a pregnant woman’s cardiovascular system directly provides oxygen to an embryo/fetus, her gastrointestinal system directly provides nutrition to the embryo/fetus via her blood, etc. If it were only a matter of indirect use, a pregnant woman could just hand the embryo/fetus off to you to care for.
Government and religion should be separated….separation of church and state. Evangelical Christians and the Roman Catholic Church can’t get their own parishioners to follow their teachings so they turn to the government to force their teachings on everyone. It’s a road map to disaster. No church, mosque or temple should be permitted to dictate how other people live or die. We have to recognize that these individuals don’t care about life; they dare about the power to control. It’s wrong. It’s unconstitutional. It’s dangerous.
This is a case of a minority imposing their ethical beliefs on a majority. This is all it takes, one blithering idiot who can’t keep up with reality and suggests, in a scientific manner, that injecting bleach intravenously should be looked into. Reagan and Nancy were ‘ethically’ against stem cell research and other advancements in medical science until Ronnie got dementia and started to slip. Then Nancy came out in support of any and every sort of advanced medical research, regardless of any past ethical blather. Nancy became a champion of stem cell research.
So people die because some obscure bible thumper has the ear of a politician and keeps licking boots. Follow Trump’s entire life and it all comes down to loyalty. Trump has appointed the most ridiculous examples of imbeciles to jobs that affect our country purely on the basis of them showing him respect, placing him above and before all else, and licking his boots. This is the Republican champion. It was bad enough ‘My country right or wrong.’ where we committed crimes in the name of America. Now it’s Me right or wrong, but I’m always right. A short leap from a colonial dictatorship to pure dictatorship. Bounce this idiot ASAP.
Jon, you know of course that just because something is legal doesn’t make it right or just. Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. To reason your way to “Let’s not waste that valuable product that we obtained legally. Let’s put it to good use to help others.” is unacceptable. It moves the historically abhorrent practice of abortion into “life-affirming” treatment and provides an additional specious argument for it.
We all want to see advancements made in science and medicine to alleviate pain and suffering especially for our loved ones. But to do so in a ghoulish practice of harvesting organs from aborted babies, well, that’s not an ethical advance.
Additionally adult stem cells have had great success. And they were obtained legally and with the consent of the person donating, unlike the fetus.
And remember Jon, you were once as small and helpless in your mother’s womb as the babies being harvested, and you were no less you, no less deserving of protection and rights than you do today.
How about harvesting babies that died at birth? How about harvesting babies that were only a few weeks old and deemed not yet humans. How about separating the two and not holding hostage beneficial medical science by rabid bible thumpers. Life is measured in degrees, not absolutes. Although absolutes are easier for the simply minded.
how about not harvesting babies at all? how about abortion only in extreme cases and not for mere convenience of the mother?
How about not falsely portraying abortion as a matter of “mere convenience of the mother”?
its not a false portrayal, 99%+ of all abortions are at the mother’s convenience. or do you not go by planned parenthood’s own stats?
Go ahead: quote where PP says something like “mere convenience of the mother.”
*You* apparently interpret it as a matter of “mere convenience,” but that doesn’t imply that that’s what *they* said.
Com, it is not an uncommon occurrence for an individual to have an abortion because it is not a convenient time to be pregnant and/or have a child because of the effect it would have on their life goals.
I don’t think serious considerations (for ex., “can I afford to support a child?”) equate to “mere convenience.” When I’ve read research about the reasons for a woman choosing to have an abortion, they don’t talk about it as a matter of “mere convenience,” as if it’s equivalent to choosing a microwave meal instead of cooking. And Matthew was suggesting that everything except “extreme cases” are “mere convenience.”
Well said.
Elective abortions occur before there’s brain activity of the sort that we use in assessing brain death.
Do you object to the removal of organs from beating-heart adult donors after brain death? Or do you accept that brain death means that the person has died? If the person has died after brain death, then no person has yet developed prior to emergence of those same brain waves in an embryo or fetus.
“you were no less you”
There is no “you” without brain activity of the sort that we use in assessing brain death.
As for “no less deserving of protection and rights than you do today,” I invite you to stand up for the rights of actual children who are being harmed, like the ones torn from their parents and caged on the southern border.
“The fact is that we have this material which will be discarded at hospitals but can be used to help others with debilitating and lethal conditions.”
Can anyone bring up an example where this is true? Instead, why not focus on adult stem cell research?
It is one thing for me to offer to donate my organs or my body when I pass… These babies did not get the option to choose, unlike their mother, did they?
There is a certain Dr. Mengele like feel to the entire process.
At the developmental stage when elective abortions occur, they have no biological capacity for thought. So they “did not get the option to choose” because they are literally incapable of choice.
so they also don’t get to live because they are incapable of choosing to live? …… poor argument, dude.
No, I was just pointing out how silly it is to talk about an embryo or early stage fetus “get[ting] the option to choose.” They are incapable of choice. “The option to choose” is non-existent.
and that is my point, just because they dont get to choose, doesn’t make them any less of a human life, because at some point in their development they will get to choose, and they shouldnt be deprived of their own choices, particularly at a convenience of the mother (which is how 99%+ of abortions are done at the moment)
I do however support abortion in extreme cases like the life of the mother being at stake, where the decision is which one dies. Just not for convenience.
Not sure why anyone would knowingly want a cure at the expense of the lives of future taxpayers. 60+ million Innocents Americans are slaughtered, and we are $23 trillion in debt.
“discarding the material . . . we have this material”
Some people don’t consider the ending of a pregnancy “material,” but a baby’s remains.
Kids poke holes in their dad’s condoms. Mom’s get pregnant. Dad blames the mailman. Abortion takes place. Kids laugh.
Doctors make money.