hot Topic: Obama to reverse "gag rule" on abortion

[Chibibar]

Ok.. this is a hot topic. I know we have our views, but hopefully we can keep it civilize (or might as well lock and delete )

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_ ... tion_ban_8

I can understand both side on the issue. Basically it open fund from Tax-payers money to help alternative, information and possible abortion.

How is this increase/decrease abortion? if people want to abort, they will find a way. Without help, you have these back ally doctors do their stuff and cause more harm than good. Family planning is not all about abortion. There are other information they can provide and alternative (like adoption and stuff)

Two of my "sisters" (female friends who I consider sisters) had abortion due to health issues, but they did consult with family planning and if it wasn't health issue, adoption was one of the way they suggest, but it was not an option for them I feel that information will help people make better decision than just let them try to find solution themselves and might end up the wrong decisions.

 

[Hylian]

 

[Scarlet Varlet]

I see the US FDA is letting some stem cell work proceed - Link

FRIDAY, Jan. 23 (HealthDay News) -- The first human trial using embryonic stem cells as a medical treatment has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Perhaps now California can move on that stem cell research thing people here voted for years ago.

 

[Espy]

I dunno man... isn't this about taxpayer money being sent overseas (or at least to other countries) in the end? No matter what the money is for we need to look very carefully at whether or not it should be spent here at home taking care of those who need it. (I'm not saying we shouldn't send money overseas, just that we should also make sure our priorities are right, that's all.)

Oh and abortion thread! IBL!

 

[Chibibar]

I see the US FDA is letting some stem cell work proceed - Link

FRIDAY, Jan. 23 (HealthDay News) -- The first human trial using embryonic stem cells as a medical treatment has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Perhaps now California can move on that stem cell research thing people here voted for years ago.

It is interesting to see the "hindsight" of the ban. This ban led to scientist to find OTHER means to create/produce stem cells. At least from different source. So I guess in my opinion, not all bans are "bad"

 

[Scarlet Varlet]

I see the US FDA is letting some stem cell work proceed - Link

FRIDAY, Jan. 23 (HealthDay News) -- The first human trial using embryonic stem cells as a medical treatment has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Perhaps now California can move on that stem cell research thing people here voted for years ago.

It is interesting to see the "hindsight" of the ban. This ban led to scientist to find OTHER means to create/produce stem cells. At least from different source. So I guess in my opinion, not all bans are "bad"

IIRC researchers found some limitations of Adult Stem Cells. As they were being barred from using Embryonic cells, obtained by whatever means were deemed unethical, that work was proceeding in countries where government left researchers unfettered.

I'm sure they went about as far as they could, now they can go the other direction and use what they have already learned. On the surface it doesn't look like much of a loss, unless they find they could have progress much faster without the hinderance.

 

[Chibibar]

IIRC researchers found some limitations of Adult Stem Cells. As they were being barred from using Embryonic cells, obtained by whatever means were deemed unethical, that work was proceeding in countries where government left researchers unfettered.

I'm sure they went about as far as they could, now they can go the other direction and use what they have already learned. On the surface it doesn't look like much of a loss, unless they find they could have progress much faster without the hinderance.

That is true. I remember reading about getting cells from umbilical cord, adult cells, and skin. I remember that some studies of getting cells from other animals (like cows)

 

As an adopted person, I have my own views on abortion. Having said that, I'm not vociferously anti-abortion, either. I think it should be used only in cases of health, incest or rape but as it's legal I'm not going to decry those who get the procedure or call them names.

I personally think it's wrong in most cases, but that's just me.


And on that note I'm headed home. It'll be interesting to see how long this thread stays civil.

 

[Espy]

And on that note I'm headed home. It'll be interesting to see how long this thread stays civil.

Go to hell you abortion loving bastard! Rabble rabble rabble rabble!

 

[Philosopher B.]

Abortion threads? Smoking threads? This is just like old times. :teeth:

 

[Scarlet Varlet]

As an adopted person, I have my own views on abortion. Having said that, I'm not vociferously anti-abortion, either. I think it should be used only in cases of health, incest or rape but as it's legal I'm not going to decry those who get the procedure or call them names.

I personally think it's wrong in most cases, but that's just me.


And on that note I'm headed home. It'll be interesting to see how long this thread stays civil.

The more I think about this (shows how often I do) I recall one of the objections on embryonic research revolved, not around abortion

, but upon the creation of embryos in the laboratory. There are religious views

that "human life begins at conception", belief life is the devine

right the diety

. Invoking the diety

to grant life to an embryo and then may be harvest it, possibly for business or personal gain, is an outrage

.

I think that's about where things were left off, though I may be incompleat or just wrong in parts. Take with granule of NaCl.

 

[Singularity.EXE]

IBL

 

[Dusty668]

Hasn't the "gag rule" rule flipped with each change of party in the white house since it was made?

 

[Scarlet Varlet]

Hasn't the "gag rule" rule flipped with each change of party in the white house since it was made?

When the Conservative Party (Republicans) began looking toward the sizeable Religious Right they gave many of their pet peeves some lip service, if not outright support. When someone of the Religious Right (Bush) became president it became more than simply lip service, a lot of it became, if not law, then how law was carried out by the Chief Executive (hey, the president is and executive.) Were the Supreme Court to mandate he do something in a particular way then he would have to, but otherwise he did as he felt proper. I saw somewhere else that foreign aid will no long be as strict on "family planning" measures as under Bush.

 

[HoboNinja]

Planned Parenthood already gets over $100,000,000 each year from taxes with the Title X program and Medicaid...

...This does piss me off.

I realize Abortion probably won't be made illegal again but in no way, shape, or form should the government be using my fucking tax money to help these bastards.

That seems like a reasonable request right? You can keep your so called freedom of "choice" and I should not have to have my money soiled with the blood of children.

 

[strawman]

I decided not to post about this earlier, because, as you know, IB4Lock.

However, it interests me because:

This is the most pressing thing that Obama had to get done first and fast. He had his staff spending time prior to inauguration writing this up and getting it all set so he could deal with it practically on day one.

Even though it's apparently more important than many other things on his plate, it should be tempered by the fact that it's simply a reversal of what GWB did, which was a reversal of what WJC did, which is a reversal of what Reagan did.

Allowing funding of social programs that benefit only non US citizens that have as part of their counseling or treatment abortion.

Admittedly many of the other matters that are truly more pressing than that may take more time to draft, deal with the various branches involved, etc, etc.

But it does demonstrate what he feels is most important.

No matter how you cut it, counseling programs for non us citizens are not what he should be spending time and resources on given everything else he is dealing with. He should have put it off for a few weeks and done it within a stack of the hundreds of things he's going to sign to reverse or modify previous presidential actions.

As far as the issue of abortion itself? No abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's health. I needn't explain why - you can find arguments for and against it all over the internet. Yes, it is a social issue, not a privacy issue.

-Adam

 

[JCM]

My opinion is the same when people talk about the Vatican deciding whether people should about- "let women themselves choose, enough with guys trying to control women's bodies.

 

[zero]

My opinion is the same when people talk about the Vatican deciding whether people should about- "let women themselves choose, enough with guys trying to control women's bodies.

I had precisely that opinion until a friend asked me "Well, and what if a woman pregnant with YOUR child wants to have an abortion?"

I had no answer back then... I still don't...

 

[GasBandit]

It may surprise some in here to learn that I am in fact pro-abortion. I am in favor of anything that kills more humans. (thbump-tssh)...

Ok, in all seriousness... I am pro choice. Yes, aborting a fetus is ending a life, I agree. But we've already established that under certain circumstances (self defense, capital punishment) it is acceptable to take a human life. Some claim that killing a fetus is the same as killing a child, but I disagree. I don't think the unborn is a child any more than a child is an adult. It's a completely separate 3rd stage. You don't legally treat a child as an adult, so I don't see the problem with treating a fetus legally different from a child.

However, I don't think public funds should be put to abortions. It's not an abortion thing, it's a socialism thing.

 

[Calleja]

The other day someone, I think it was Straub, linked an article with pro-choice people finally disarming "pro-life" people, by simply asking one question:

Hell, Firefox History found the link for me:

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/01/21 ... -question/


You see it for yourself.

 

[babeltek]

Can someone please explain why a non-governmental organization like Planned Parenthood gets a third of its budget from the government when the services it provides aren't being used by the government (as opposed to private businesses that build rocket parts, etc.)? Does it have anything to do with its non-profit status?

 

[zero]

But we've already established that under certain circumstances (self defense, capital punishment) it is acceptable to take a human life.

Easy on the "we've established" and "capital punishment". I don't think many will argue against self-defense, but capital punishment is far from being a consensus...

 

[strawman]

The other day someone, I think it was Straub, linked an article with pro-choice people finally disarming "pro-life" people, by simply asking one question:

If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?

To avoid others having to click through to read a single sentence. :eyeroll:

This question isn't the end-all be-all that it seems, though. A matching question for pro-choice would be, "If an abortion can happen a few days before birth, then why not a few days after birth? What difference does a few days make?"

Either way, it doesn't matter. Who cares when the death occurs, who cares what the punishment is? It's either a woman's choice, or it's inappropriate loss of life - the rest can be sorted out once a determination has been made.

As of right now, our society's determination is that it's a woman's choice.

-Adam

 

[zero]

The other day someone, I think it was Straub, linked an article with pro-choice people finally disarming "pro-life" people, by simply asking one question:

If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?

Geez, you "common law" guys, how do your legal system even work?

From the Brazilian penal code (lousy translation mine):

Article 125 - To cause abortion on yourself or to allow someone else to do it:
Detention, from one to tree years.

 

[makare]

The other day someone, I think it was Straub, linked an article with pro-choice people finally disarming "pro-life" people, by simply asking one question:

If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?

Geez, you "common law" guys, how do your legal system even work?

From the Brazilian penal code (lousy translation mine):
[quote:2869ui2a]
Article 125 - To cause abortion on yourself or to allow someone else to do it:
Detention, from one to tree years.

[/quote:2869ui2a]


I don't think abortion is covered under common law at all. The common law used the born alive rule killing a fetus was not a crime.

 

[zero]

I don't think abortion is covered under common law at all. The common law used the born alive rule killing a fetus was not a crime.

Yes, as I get it, abortion is legal in the USA, right?
It just surprised me that the "big disarming question" was something rather banal such as "what should be the penalty for the crime."

 

[Calleja]

wathc the video in the article.


And to the a few days thing.. it certainly matters, that's like saying "one vote doesn't count" fuck that, of course it does.

 

[makare]

I don't think abortion is covered under common law at all. The common law used the born alive rule killing a fetus was not a crime.

Yes, as I get it, abortion is legal in the USA, right?
It just surprised me that the "big disarming question" was something rather banal such as "what should be the penalty for the crime."

I was just confused I guess. Our system today is not the "common law" we have redone alot of the old laws in favor of the model penal code.

Related to abortion though I was kind of surprised about the puritans having the born alive rule when they were so religious. Today the religious are generally the ones claiming that abortion is a sin and a crime. In some ways our society is more puritanical than the puritans'.

 

[Chippy]

Planned Parenthood already gets over $100,000,000 each year from taxes with the Title X program and Medicaid...

...This does piss me off.

I realize Abortion probably won't be made illegal again but in no way, shape, or form should the government be using my fucking tax money to help these bastards.

That seems like a reasonable request right? You can keep your so called freedom of "choice" and I should not have to have my money soiled with the blood of children.

Way to keep things civil.

 

[Espy]

The other day someone, I think it was Straub, linked an article with pro-choice people finally disarming "pro-life" people, by simply asking one question:

If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?

To avoid others having to click through to read a single sentence. :eyeroll:

This question isn't the end-all be-all that it seems, though. A matching question for pro-choice would be, "If an abortion can happen a few days before birth, then why not a few days after birth? What difference does a few days make?"

Either way, it doesn't matter. Who cares when the death occurs, who cares what the punishment is? It's either a woman's choice, or it's inappropriate loss of life - the rest can be sorted out once a determination has been made.

As of right now, our society's determination is that it's a woman's choice.

-Adam

Wow. Sure stumped me! Now I don't know if i hate abortion or luv it!?!
But really, thats a silly (and primarily an off topic) question. I have no issue with anyone thinking abortion is the bees knees. Great. Rock on. I assume they can also, like a mature adult view things from other people's perspectives and allow for civil disagreement on the issue.
But that's just asking a hypothetical question that avoids the actual issue in order to say, "people who disagree with me are stoopid!" Which doesn't really help anyone understand the others viewpoint.

 

[zero]

Our system today is not the "common law" we have redone alot of the old laws in favor of the model penal code.

Oh snap! My prejudice, sorry... Feel free to ask about monkeys roaming our streets any time...

 

[Raemon777]

This question isn't the end-all be-all that it seems, though. A matching question for pro-choice would be, "If an abortion can happen a few days before birth, then why not a few days after birth? What difference does a few days make?"

I don't know anyone who supports abortion that late. Third trimester abortions are already illegal from what I know, and my own opinion is that we should legally treat them as human beings after the brain has developed.

Yes, aborting a fetus is ending a life, I agree. But we've already established that under certain circumstances (self defense, capital punishment) it is acceptable to take a human life. Some claim that killing a fetus is the same as killing a child, but I disagree. I don't think the unborn is a child any more than a child is an adult. It's a completely separate 3rd stage. You don't legally treat a child as an adult, so I don't see the problem with treating a fetus legally different from a child.

However, I don't think public funds should be put to abortions. It's not an abortion thing, it's a socialism thing.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, which actually makes sense to me.

I assume you'd be against federal funding for international groups in general. So the question is whether we're actually spending more money or merely dividing it up differently.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

your so called freedom of "choice" and I should not have to have my money soiled with the blood of children.

 

[Chippy]

But really, thats a silly (and primarily an off topic) question. I have no issue with anyone thinking abortion is the bees knees. Great. Rock on. I assume they can also, like a mature adult view things from other people's perspectives and allow for civil disagreement on the issue.
But that's just asking a hypothetical question that avoids the actual issue in order to say, "people who disagree with me are stoopid!" Which doesn't really help anyone understand the others viewpoint.

Exactly. I am pro-choice, but I can easily see why others would be against it, and I respect their right to disagree with it.

Edit: Ha. Nice image, Charlie.

 

[Espy]

This question isn't the end-all be-all that it seems, though. A matching question for pro-choice would be, "If an abortion can happen a few days before birth, then why not a few days after birth? What difference does a few days make?"

I don't know anyone who supports abortion that late.

Well, when presented with this tough issue, our new President, who isn't afraid to make the hard decisions, well, according to N.O.W. he rolled back his sleeves and gritted his teeth and voted, "Present".
So I guess we know where he stands. :bush:

Edit: Ha. Nice image, Charlie.

Nice image? GREAT image. thhp: