The Back Alley Archives

obama should put all the 'pay to kill babies' stuff and gays in the military stuff on hold and focus immediately on the financial crisis...not the kinda thing one should be doing imho if it is bi-partisanship he is looking for on such controversial issues.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-orders2009jan20,0,965955.story

abortion, IMO, is such a minor issue. I'll never understand why so many get so worked up over it. Everyone has their issues, I guess.

I agree. I'm against abortion-for-convenience, but the status quo isn't going to change and there are far more important things to focus our attention on.

abortion, IMO, is such a minor issue. I'll never understand why so many get so worked up over it. Everyone has their issues, I guess.

On this we can agree.

And the order Obama lifted was the gag rule that stated that any group that received money from the US couldn't use the word abortion in counseling - as opposed to actively supporting and encouraging the procedure which right to life groups will say.

1st day agenda? c'mon.

Considering that it basically took a stroke of his pen to overturn this ruling, it took a grand total of about 10 seconds.

Expect to see Obama overturn Bush's stupid ban on embryonic stem cell research as well.

Is it just me, or is it great saying Former President Bush?

I'm not terribly upset seeing him go, his last year or two have me not as warm to him, but I'd still rather him than what we have, but oh well.

I agree with you rad...I think he should have waited on this issue. I personally have strong feelings about abortion but I do not believe that the federal government should be involved at all...it should be a state or local issue.

In any case, I just read that he froze the WH staff salaries and is calling for more transparancy on decisions, etc. That doesn't hurt my feelin's.

for a man who wants to come off as able to work both sides of the aisle, repealing the ban on killing babies and lifting the ban on stem cell research on his first days as his first agendas makes him look like he don't really give a fuck.

I agree with you rad...I think he should have waited on this issue. I personally have strong feelings about abortion but I do not believe that the federal government should be involved at all...it should be a state or local issue.

In any case, I just read that he froze the WH staff salaries and is calling for more transparancy on decisions, etc. That doesn't hurt my feelin's.

hurts mine.

Sometimes the general public should be left in the dark.

Ihate, I understand where you're coming from but with this dude in the office I want to know what he's doing as much as possible. I'm not saying we should be making military operations public or anything like that...but when it comes to lobbyists and those deals, I don't have a problem with making those dealings public.

fair enough.

I guess it depends on what he's trying to make more/less "transparent"

for a man who wants to come off as able to work both sides of the aisle, repealing the ban on killing babies and lifting the ban on stem cell research on his first days as his first agendas makes him look like he don't really give a fuck.

I realize it isn't the point of the thread, but where do you stand on embryonic stem cell research?

i'm not supportive of that particular scientific breakthrough.

What about the excess embryos that are to be discarded anyway?

I don't think embryos should be produced for the express purpose of destroying them for research, but if they're just sitting there in storage and/or are going to be destroyed, why not use them for something positive? I've done a couple of school projects on the subject and am excited at the prospects of federally-funded research being able to discover cures, therapies, and treatments for countless health problems.

fair enough.

I guess it depends on what he's trying to make more/less "transparent"

I somehow get the feeling this "transparency" is like the first round of three card monte.

Nobody's better than the government at fraud.

What about the excess embryos that are to be discarded anyway?

I don't think embryos should be produced for the express purpose of destroying them for research, but if they're just sitting there in storage and/or are going to be destroyed, why not use them for something positive? I've done a couple of school projects on the subject and am excited at the prospects of federally-funded research being able to discover cures, therapies, and treatments for countless health problems.

so are embryo's indeed produced for the express purpose of destroying them or are embryo's produced not for the express purpose of destroying them? a bit confused.

Absent an emergency situation, I don't approve of federal funding of any research - be it embryonic stem cell research or the human genome project.

The problem is that the gub'ment hands out these dollars (MY dollars) to the big pharmaceutical companies and guess who gets to patent the medicines that are developed? Guess who gets the profit? Not the government. Screw that. If government funds the research, then the drugs and knowledge gained through the research should belong to the public.

If we need to stamp out polio or some kind of epidemic, fine, then it's justified.

What about the excess embryos that are to be discarded anyway?

If they're just sitting there in storage and/or are going to be destroyed, why not use them for something positive?

There...now, it's pretty straightforward.

when you say embryo's, do you mean aborted fetuses?

ESCR uses fertilized eggs that were produced in fertility clinics and were not used. They are going to be destroyed anyway. Why not use these eggs, which I emphasize again are going to be destroyed anyway, for good use?

I cornerd JerseyGator, Mr "I can convert any discussion thread to an anti-abortion thread" with this one - if you don't want these eggs to be destroyed, are you prepared to legally declare them to be humans with all rights and priviliges? Do you want to require every fertilized egg produced in fertility clinic has to be implanted? He wouldn't answer me on that - he knew I had him.

This issue is very important to me from a family perspective. ESCR has been show to be effective in trating Parkinson's Disease. I had an uncle who died of this disease. He went from being a strong vital person full of life to a frail shell of a man who shook all the time. The effect this had on his family was devastating. If ESCR has the potential to cure this disease, then by all means pursue this.

This issue also touches on another soapbox for me. I had MANY complaints about the incompetence of the Bush regime and how it functioned. One of my biggest was the censoring of science for political agendas. Just like he did with global warming reports, Bush put limits on ESCR for decisions of pleasing the extremist elements of his base, not for strong scientific reasons. So essentially 8 years were wasted with this research. Some scientists moved to other countries. The scientific and economic ramification of this stupid decision were many and large. Which is why I was overjoyed when Obama said that Science will play an important role in his Administration.

So I say again - why not use these eggs, which are going to be destroyed anyway, for a good purpose?

why are

ESCR uses fertilized eggs that were produced in fertility clinics and were not used.

why were they not used?

Question for ya, slider, and I'm asking this out of pure ignorance of the subject, not out of a desire to put you on the spot:

I've heard that the embryonic stem cell research is not actually very promising. The research that has been done thus far (without a government handout) hasn't really led to any new developments. Is this true?

I've also heard that the same research can be conducted using stem cells from other sources, like cord blood. Is that true?

We wouldn't have this problem if people could accept the fact that not everyone is destined to reproduce.