Measured Against Reality

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Menstruation Should Be Illegal

One of the things that really gets me about people who refuse to allow federal funding for stem cell research is how inane their arguments really are, and how they’re blocking one of the most promising medical research avenues available today.

Arguments usually go something like this: “research using human embryos [is] ‘gravely immoral,’ because removing cells kills an unborn child.” Very frequently they say that the embryos have “potential” for human life.

Remember, this “unborn child” is a zygote, at this point called a blastocyst. It has no nerves, no blood vessels, no bones, no skin. It doesn’t even have a placenta. It can’t feel pain, move, or survive on its own. It’s as sentient as the bacteria on your keyboard.

In order for an externally fertilized embryo to turn into an actual baby (as in, one with a brain and a heart that’s capable of feeling anything or doing anything), it needs to be implanted in the uterine wall and actually carry to term, something which only has a 20-30% chance of happening, even given that 5 embryos may be implanted, and those were only the ones judged “best” (the others are destroyed). In short, for every externally fertilized embryo that does get turned into a baby, about nine don’t (that’s being conservative, it’s probably higher).

Well, you know what, each egg has potential for life, all it needs to do is be penetrated by a sperm, implant in the uterine wall, not spontaneously abort or miscarry (which there’s a 50% chance of). The odds of any one egg coming to term, as long as the ovulating women has sex at the right time, are about as good as those with IV Fertilization (provided, of course, that there are no problems of the kind that lead to IV Fertilization being necessary).

Since there’s just as much “potential” for a single egg to come to term as an externally-fertilized embryo, logically we should ban menstruation as immoral. Women of the earth, lend me your eggs, I mean, ears! Every time you menstruate, you murder a potential child! You must stop this indiscriminant killing! Each egg is precious, it carries with it the potential to make a human, for all it needs is sperm! Indeed, every sperm is sacred, and male masturbation kills thousands of potential children, and should thusly be outlawed!



I can find no logically consistent way to be against stem-cell research and not against menstruation or male masturbation. In all three cases, the only thing that’s destroyed is a lump of cells: unconscious, unfeeling cells incapable of living on their own. Eggs, sperm, and blastocysts can eventually turn into a human, but the odds are low and special circumstances must be met.

Embryonic stem cells are a very promising area of research, and blocking that research is almost certainly killing more people than will ever be born of the blastocysts destroyed, and every day more eggs and sperm that could become children are lost. Which of those three things is the greatest tragedy? I know my answer, what’s yours?

Labels: , , ,

55 Comments:

  • Fertilized eggs ARE human; they don't "eventually turn into humans" any more than a baby eventually turns into a human at the age of 21.

    Perhaps we could fund medical experimentation on bloggers like you, prior to them eventually becoming human (also like yourself).

    John Dias
    Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:39 AM, October 12, 2006  

  • Stem cell research IS being funded by the Bush administration. The administration simply opposes funding research that would destroy NEW embryos, since existing embyonic stem cell lines and adult stem cells are available.

    See "Argue Stem Cells on the Merits":
    http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=oid%3A149010

    Jason McNeill

    By Blogger Jason McNeill, at 11:43 AM, October 12, 2006  

  • Anonymous, let me list the ways that I am different than an externally fertilized blastocyst:

    -I can move.
    -I can think.
    -I can breathe.
    -I have a pulse.
    -I have differentiated cells.
    -I have organs.
    -I can live outside of a petri-dish.
    -I can feel pain.

    But yeah, other than those things and a myriad more, we're exactly the same.

    Jason, I know that funding has been appropriated for some things, but there are problems with that. Adult stem cells aren't pluripotent, which makes them less useful (they can't become some tissues that embryonic cells can). And the existing lines are small in number and degrading in quality, at least from what I've heard. The lack of federal funds really does hurt research.

    By Blogger Stupac2, at 12:00 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • You were that once, Stu. If I used you to make Christopher Reeves be able to pee standing up again, we wouldn't be having this argument today.

    End of story. Why should you get to take my money (this is only a ban on publicly funded research, i.e. wealth redistribution to scientists) to kill human life if I don't want you to.

    Conservatives and people who believe in God simply value human life more than you do. Just don't take my money to kill your babies.

    By Blogger Mr. Fantastic!, at 12:09 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • Um, I was never an externally fertilized embryo. Sorry.

    By Blogger Stupac2, at 12:11 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • Mr. Fantastic!
    "Conservatives and people who believe in God simply value human life more than you do. Just don't take my money to kill your babies."
    Then you and your conservative godfearing government better quit taking my money to bomb the blastocysts who became fetuses who became children. In Iraq.
    Your god and your government only care about unborn life? It's a lot easier to romanticize a baby than someone you disagree with.
    P.S. All the stem cells in the world won't help Christopher Reeve (pbuh) stand up and pee. Might want to get caught up on the current events, there, chief.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:28 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • "Um, I was never an externally fertilized embryo. Sorry."

    Premise conceded! You apparently have provided the justification for medical experiments upon adults who were conceived outside the womb.

    Mr. Fantastic, a commenter posted above, was right when he said, "Conservatives and people who believe in God simply value human life more than you do. Just don't take my money to kill your babies."

    Jason McNeill

    By Blogger Jason McNeill, at 12:45 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • I agree Mr Stupac.

    I also think that is we outlaw masturbation because it kills "unborn children", we also need to outlaw anal sex for the same reason - also, it's gross because there's poo in there, but that's beside the point.

    Everyone who disagrees is an enemy combatant and subject to torture.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:01 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • john said: "Fertilized eggs ARE human; they don't "eventually turn into humans" any more than a baby eventually turns into a human at the age of 21."

    fertilized eggs ARENT human, any more than a liver is a human. Take any organ out of your body, and it ceases to work. Take a fertilized egg out of a womb, and it ceases to develop. A human exists from the moment it can be removed from the mother and have an independent existance. Before that, its just another organ.

    By Anonymous lokey, at 1:07 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • "fertilized eggs ARENT human, any more than a liver is a human. Take any organ out of your body, and it ceases to work. Take a fertilized egg out of a womb, and it ceases to develop. A human exists from the moment it can be removed from the mother and have an independent existance. Before that, its just another organ."

    We disagree. But don't take my money to kill your babies. My point stands.

    You liberals are just making up straw men. Conservatives do not support exactly one type of research: that which results in the destruction of fertilized embryos and requires (or demands- you libs are always demanding my money).

    By Blogger Mr. Fantastic!, at 1:38 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • Talk about straw men Fantastic, you didn't even address his point about the Iraq war. The hundreds of billions of "my dollars" that all the "libs" gave for that war don't matter as much as the (maybe) hudred million that would go toward stem cell research? 600,000 real, breathing, pain-feeling Iraqis have died in that war, which I'm guessing you support. Do they not count? Does the "libs"' money gone toward a war they opposed from the start not count?

    You could at least be consistent.

    By Blogger Stupac2, at 1:43 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • "Conservatives and people who believe in God simply value human life more than you do. Just don't take my money to kill your babies."

    Oh, really? 'Conservatives and the people who believe in God' don't seem to highly value the 655,000 innocent Iraqi citizens murdered as a result of the Bush administration's criminal mishandling of its war of choice in Iraq. Nor do they seem at all concerned about the genocide going on in Darfur, in which hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children have been raped, tortured, and killed. I suppose these 'foreign' lives are less valuable than good 'ol red-blooded American blastocysts?

    And I realize that there are far more pressing matters than genocide for the Christian Right to focus on...like boys kissing, or trying to get married!

    Here's a question I'm sure many of you have heard before: If you're in a burning building and have the opportunity to save one live, crying baby, or a freezer full of hundreds of frozen embryos, which do you choose?

    Obviously, those arguing that frozen clumps of cells are equal to living, breathing humans should choose the freezer, should they not?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:59 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • There is nothing to back up that 600k figure. You liberals just want that many people to have died.

    I'm proud that those Iraqi and Afghani women can vote for the first time in their nations' histories. I'm glad that genocidal bastard Hussein is on trial.

    You liberals were wrong then about the war, you're wrong now about the war, and just because you don't get it is no reason for the war to end. The newfound freedom of millions of Iraqis is all the more reason to stay there and kill terrorists until those people can live in peace, and if we abandon them now it will doom them to the 7th century nihilism our enemy wants to impose.

    The troops tend to agree with me.

    What straw man did I build up, Stu?

    By Blogger Mr. Fantastic!, at 2:04 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • That 600,000 quote isn't correct, hell it went up to 655,000 in the space of one comment. If I come back here tomorrow you're going to claim that 6,000,000 civilians have been killed. The fact is these two things don't have anything to do with each other. I don't believe that we should create new embryos for research because I believe that it is against the natural order of things. I also don't believe that men should masturbate, so I don't vote that my taxes should be used for that, at least I don't think I do. I also don't think that we should use IV fertilization, but I realize that puts me in a minority group. The war in Iraq is a completely different issue and shouldn't weigh into this discussion. The only way that they compare are that they both have to do with tax dollars. The stem cell issue isn't easy, it's not as easy as you want to make it and it's not as easy as your detractors want to make it either. However, because a large amount of the voting public have a personal feeling against it the government can't fully fund it, case closed. Use private funding and get over it. I don't agree with it, but this is America, I can't stop you.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:45 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • 'Huge rise' in Iraqi death tolls:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:55 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • "There is nothing to back up that 600k figure. You liberals just want that many people to have died."

    The snake shows its true nature.

    Isn't it nice that conservatives love shooting themselves in the foot?

    Saves us progressive lib'rils time and energy.

    By Blogger Jan-Willem Bats, at 3:40 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • Look, I support stem cell research all the way, but you are setting up a straw man argument here.

    "Is a child born if you destroy an embryo to take stem cells? No. Is a child born if you menstruate? No. See, look, they're the same because either way a child is not born! Yaay!"

    That is how you appear to be mocking your opponents. There is a fundamental difference between an unfertilized, unimplanted, haploid egg and a fertilized, implanted, diploid human fetus. Your argument is absurd to the point of weakening the position of all of us who legitimately support stem cell research.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:43 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • "The troops tend to agree with me."

    um... yeah.

    "An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows."

    But I guess you're not one to heed polls or statistics or science...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:17 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • Back in the 1980s, the political satire group Ladies Against Women in the Bay Area used to have a routine about how every time a man masturbates or a woman menstruates, potential lives are lost!

    Mr F,
    FYI, Women got the right to vote in Afghanistan in 1961 (before Switzerland, in 1971!) and in Iraq in 1980.

    By Anonymous fkm, at 5:19 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • "reason to stay there and kill terrorists until those people can live in peace"

    You mean the terrorists that the US brought to Iraq, because Iraq certainly never had a terrorism problem like this before, and Saddam Hussein certainly didn't kill his population as fast as the terrorists do now.

    "The troops tend to agree with me."

    You know, when someone's livelihood depends on believing a bunch of crap, they'll tend to believe that bunch of crap.

    By Blogger sigfpe, at 5:21 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • Alright, fine. Several thousand american deaths in a botched war do not matter compared to one egg.

    Once out of the womb, conservatives and the christian right don't give a rat's arse what happens to the baby, as long as it is born. That's why social services (you know, the alternatives?) are so poorly funded, especially in southern most states (I'm looking at you, Mississippi).

    By Anonymous P.S.V., at 5:33 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • Liberalism is actually theoretically very similar to conservatism. And 600k, 300k... does it make any difference to the fact that Bush is responsible, in the end, for all those deaths?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:37 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • I am a male, and I don't have as much sex as I could. Right now I can think of 3 or 4 girls I could have sex with without much convincing. Good girls who seem to be fertile.

    During a stem cell argument with my mom, I told her this. I told her that in failing to impregnate them, I was a murderer.

    I thought it was a clever argument.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:58 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • Bush is not responsible for the Iraq war, Saddam Hussein was. Look up the myriad UN resolutions (http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm) condemning his obstinate behavior. He committed genocide and is better off deposed than in power. Moral clarity and an understanding of right and wrong is the key principle behind the neoconservative movement and the mobilizing belief behind the Iraq war.

    I stand by my support of freedom in Iraq and think we should not turn it over to the terrorists. We should once again stay there and kill them off.

    Bush did not create them. As he has explained over and over and over again, the war was started expressly to lure the jihadist element to a place where we could make war against them.

    Every dead terrorist is one more person who will not come here to kill you or I.

    How do I know the troops support the mission? THEY SIGNED UP FOR IT. The military is an all-volunteer organ. Too bad most libs these days think the brightest and most courageous people in this nation are simpletons.

    "You know, when someone's livelihood depends on believing a bunch of crap, they'll tend to believe that bunch of crap."

    You people are going to lose in November because the American people don't want another Vietnam and will not let you do to this war what you did to that one.

    We will win the war, and live securely in the future having helped establish the first free and open government Arab government in the middle east. We will stand by free societies worldwide and always defend our allies.

    The war will not be botched until we surrender. Surrender means pulling out and abandoning the Iraqi people (who have been under the rule of a murderous dictator for four decades).

    Liberal self-flagellation and slogans (Bush Lied Kids Died!) will ensure that your party will continue to lose horribly in every election.

    By Blogger Mr. Fantastic!, at 6:20 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • lol...to shed a little humor into the argument...i really think masterbation is important.

    stupac...u got my vote. what has the potential to be one life can also have the potential to save many more. that one cell could come up with a cure to save everyone. what is more important, one or everyone.

    - daphne moore -

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:33 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • People this argument is tearing us apart! Can we all just agree that the Liberals can spend there money killing unborn babies and the conservatives can spend theirs on killing those that are born? Really people, can't we all just get along and get on with the baby killing that agree with each of our individual sensitivities?

    By Blogger michael, at 6:41 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • "I stand by my support of freedom in Iraq and think we should not turn it over to the terrorists. We should once again stay there and kill them off."

    You gotta be shittin' me. So it is ok to kill these impoverished, brainwashed people who have already been born and not ok to use public money to experiment on cells? I guess god wants it that way.

    By Anonymous Scott, at 7:31 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • "I stand by my support of freedom in Iraq and think we should not turn it over to the terrorists. We should once again stay there and kill them off."

    OK...run this by me again: when are we allowed to kill people? Sometimes I get confused if I can shoot real people or a bunch of cells that would die if they weren't in a dish.

    "Every dead terrorist is one more person who will not come here to kill you or I."

    I would whole heartedly disagree with the above statement. In fact, I am fairly certain that instigating more violence will create more numskull extremists (both Christian and Muslim). But lets give it a shot and see how it goes....

    By Anonymous Scott, at 7:43 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • here here, michael

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:12 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • "You gotta be shittin' me. So it is ok to kill these impoverished, brainwashed people who have already been born and not ok to use public money to experiment on cells? I guess god wants it that way."

    Embryos do not strap bombs to themselves or plant IEDs. Embryos do not attack women going to vote for the first time.

    In fact, embryos are a completely innocent form of human life.

    So no, you don't get to take my money to kill them.

    Your logic is illogical.

    As far as "creating more extremists," if they want to be killed, they can feel free to become terrorists. When they stop waging holy war against us, we'll stop defending ourselves against them.

    Until then, war on.

    By Blogger Mr. Fantastic!, at 9:05 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • Jason said: "...let me list the ways that I am different than an externally fertilized blastocyst..."

    I think we need to clear out the smoke a bit. The problem here lies in what each side is focusing on, and has its roots in the abortion debate. Please allow me to make some observations from personal experience:

    First of all, let's dispense with some straw men at the outset. The circumstances under which fertilization occurs is ethically irrelevant to this discussion. It is no more or less ethical to destroy an externally fertilized blastocyst than it is to destroy one that has been fertilized in the womb.

    Whether or not it has been implanted in the uterine wall is also ethically irrelevant, since the whole reason that which has been used in research hasn't implanted is that it's been intentionally prevented from doing so. Indeed, its very creation was predicated upon the intent that it never be given that chance. Either it's human life or it isn't; destroying it is either moral or it isn't; how or where it was created matters not to that evaluation.

    Now, on with the quandary we're in:

    Advocates of fetal stem cell research tend to emphasize the functional differences between blastocyst and post-natal human, and want to avoid to the extent possible any ethical discussion of whether using such entities constitutes killing a human. If drawn into such a discussion, they focus on the fetus' dependence as justification for treating it as less than human. This is in most ways identical to the tactics used by advocates of abortion on demand.

    Opponents of fetal stem cell research OTOH tend to emphasize what they consider the essential humanity of the fertilized egg -- the "life begins at conception" argument. They rigidly oppose any attempt to differentiate between blastocyst and fetus, despite the fact that the only human characteristic of a newly fertilized egg is that it possesses human DNA.

    The problem from the opponents' perspective is that they aren't stupid. Many of them were suckered once in the abortion debate, accepting the word of early abortion advocates that abortion was only desired to be available for the first trimester, and perhaps not even that long, but just long enough to allow termination of pregnancies where the fetus hadn't become "fully human" yet (whatever that means). Trouble was, the next thing they knew, doctors were manually turning infants in the womb to the breech position and sucking the brains out of otherwise viable, full-term infants. They aren't about to be conned a second time. They know where this kind of research can lead, and where it likely will lead if the moral and ethical boundaries are not fully and rigidly established up front.

    So let's now consider those boundaries. Your point about an undifferentiated blastocyst not being human is a reasonable position from which to begin a discussion, but you overlook the crucial consideration of precisely when it does become human. If it isn't human while undifferentiated, does it become human once differentiation begins? Or does it happen sometime after that? When?

    You also refer to viability outside the womb as a criterion. When is a fetus considered viable? Many will say only at birth. I personally know one man who argues that it's only when a baby can survive outside the womb without any artificial assistance. So much for preemies -- I guess they're fair game from his perspective. Attitudes like that lead to guys like that "bio-ethicist" from Princeton (can't recall his name) claiming that it's OK to kill babies even after birth if they're handicapped in some way. After all, if one accepts the argument that dependency on the mother for one's life is equivalent to a lack of humanity, then if someone is dependent on others, that person is not fully human, but merely an organ. Location is irrelevant. Your opponents in this debate are rightfully fearful of attitudes like that.

    Others will argue that viability occurs only at the point where medicine can preserve a preemie's life outside the womb. But how do we precisely evaluate where that point occurs, considering humans' massive variability? Is it at six months' gestation? Five? As medical science becomes more and more capable, how do we adjust our perspective if viability by this definition moves back to four months, three months, or even one month? Worse yet, what happens when (not if) we learn to build artificial wombs? Then, not even a blastocyst could ever be considered non-viable.

    Where do we draw the line? And more importantly, who decides where that line shall be drawn? Do we leave it to some group of medical elites, whom we know to have a financial stake in the outcome? I'm sure no ethical person, even if a member of that elite, could help but be uncomfortable with that. Or do we open the decision up to everyone to decide via the political process? Even then, ethics demands that we keep financial considerations out of it to the extent possible. And if the line is drawn at some point after conception, what are the implications with respect to our regard for the value of life itself? Will we be creating a more compassionate society, or a Brave New World? These are not questions we can easily dodge with a cavalier dismissal of a life's potential viability, or by calling it something other than a developing human being.

    I think we can agree on one thing: that fetal stem cell research carries the potential for some important and dramatic advances in the medical treatments for many diseases. There is no doubt that such advances could profoundly improve the quality of life for many people who would otherwise be forced to watch themselves become increasingly debilitated, many dying slowly and painfully. But I don't think we can just ignore the immense ethical conundrum that this kind of research creates. To charge ahead with an end-justifies-the-means mentality is to invite a catastrophic moral and ethical collapse within the culture, with the very great likelihood of creating a world in which none of us have any value. That's not a world in which I would like to live. Would you?

    In the meantime, until we've resolved these questions, I'm content to keep this area of research closed. Let's not open Pandora's box before we're certain that we're ready to deal with the consequences of that decision.

    By Blogger Rastus, at 10:02 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • Is it just me or is Mr 'Fantastic' (obviously has a small penis) an auto response robot?

    I say yey to Michael for his great idea of let killers be killers and lets all get back to masturbating like we should be.

    p.s.. Mr Fantastic it seems you are more concerned about the petty tax you pay, from your checkout-chick job, being used than you are about the moral issues posed.

    Oska

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:22 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • Fantastic I think you're drastically outclassed here. I'd give up while you can.

    You arent responding to any points made with coherent arguments. You seem to simply be blindly opposing any argument for stem cell research then making money your motive for opposition.

    Well, if money is your motivation, which is sad considering whats being debated here, go get a better job or donate some sperm seeing as you don't seem to consider that in the same category as this.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:31 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • What are you two idiots talking about?

    All I've ever said was that I don't want public funds for embryonic stem cell research.

    I am for it as long as I'm not paying for it. I don't want my money being used for something ethically and morally as slippery-slope-y as what Rastus so eloquently described. I share his POV and have reiterated that repeatedly in my comments.

    I am for:
    •Privately-funded embryonic stem cell research (you can use your money to kill your kids is fine with me)
    •Private and public funding for adult stem cell research
    •Umbilical cord-derived cells look promising as well, and I am not familiar with any ethical issues here

    I guess you two saw the words "don't use my money" and assumed I wanted to make money off of stem cells or something, but clearly you have difficulty reading.

    My position is clear.

    By Blogger Mr. Fantastic!, at 10:57 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • Oh, thank GOD someone finally said what I've been thinking all along.

    While you're at it, could you please make removing all cancer cells illegal, too? Or removing any cells from a person? Seriously. Because they're just a collection of cells that _cannot exist outside the body they are removed from_.

    Better yet, anyone who says banish stem cell research should be prohibited from receiving any treatment derived from the knowledge gained from such research.

    Anyone who makes the argument "If we used you for stem cell research you wouldn't be here" is a retard. _Of course_ I wouldn't be here, but that statement is completely irrelevant. It's like saying "The sky is blue" when arguing string theory: it may be valid statement, but it's still immaterial to the current discussion.

    Every non-egg, non-sperm cell contains all the coding to make a new person. With the direction research is going, it may not be long (where long = a century -/+) before the stem-cell pluripotent properties are coaxed out of any cell. Until then, let the research continue.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:31 PM, October 12, 2006  

  • "While you're at it, could you please make removing all cancer cells illegal, too? Or removing any cells from a person? Seriously. Because they're just a collection of cells that _cannot exist outside the body they are removed from_.

    Better yet, anyone who says banish stem cell research should be prohibited from receiving any treatment derived from the knowledge gained from such research.

    Anyone who makes the argument "If we used you for stem cell research you wouldn't be here" is a retard. _Of course_ I wouldn't be here, but that statement is completely irrelevant. It's like saying "The sky is blue" when arguing string theory: it may be valid statement, but it's still immaterial to the current discussion."

    Anonymous will find any justification he needs to destroy human life. Anonymous will dismiss any argument rooted in moral principle and regard for all human life no matter how small as "immaterial to the current discussion."

    This is the culture wars in action. I will not let the children I someday hope to have be born into an America where anonymous' attitude becomes the rule and not the exception.

    And I still find no reason to have the government take my money (which is what "public funding" means guys - your tax dollars at work) to give it for the destruction - for any reason - of human life. It is immoral and unethical and it sets in motion the slippery slope Rastus spoke of.

    By Blogger Mr. Fantastic!, at 12:01 AM, October 13, 2006  

  • Fetuses develop to the point of having human-type brainwaves at about six month's gestation. That seems like a useful and verifiable threshold for argument.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:40 AM, October 13, 2006  

  • Well, more than half the country would prefer that $300 billion (and counting) of our taxpayer money not be used to incompetently wage a war of choice on a country that didn't attack us. Many of us would prefer our taxpayer money to have been used going after the actual terrorists who did attack us, or to increase security at our airports, sea ports, chemical plants, etc.

    Some of that $300 billion could have been used to research alternative and non-polluting energy sources, so that we don't have to rely on the Middle East for our oil addiction. Or to help end genocide in Africa, or poverty here at home and all over the world, or for countless other things that would actually benefit humanity.

    I guess we don't always have a say in how our public funds are used, do we? At least stem cell research has the great potential to save lives by providing cures for all sorts of illnesses and disorders. That's more than you can say for a lot of other uses of public funds (especially the uses of the Bush administration).

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:18 AM, October 13, 2006  

  • Great post. Dead on.

    The only reason there IS an issue is because Pharmaceuticals have CREATED an issue and got morons like Dubya on their side.

    There is no financial incentive to cure any diseases apart from maybe a small bit of cash to actually perform the cure. And if that only takes an hour, it really can't cost that much. Now, a lifetime supply of meds makes TONS of money, as does cancer treatment, and diabetes support pills and devices.

    By Blogger canadiense, at 12:44 PM, October 13, 2006  

  • "Don't take my money to kill your babies." Why, that's mighty anarchist of you, brother.

    Certainly, I don't want to force anyone to pay for those things they disagree with, just as I do not want them to force me to pay for those things that I find abhorrent. Nor do I want anyone to take my money to force me to not do something that find to be perfectly reasonable and ethical. So no federal funds for embryo research. No government funds for cruise missiles. No money for the New Prohibition. No government cash for Social Security. Without the taxes, taken by force, to support any of these things, the various things that some people find objectionable will only happen if there are enough people who both find them desirable and are willing to pay voluntarily to make them happen.

    Since my opinion is that humans are defined by their software, and not their hardware, I have no moral objections to performing hideous experiments on unthinking clumps of cells. It is like taking the power supply out of a computer case that hasn't even had a motherboard installed in it, much less the memory, CPU, storage, or operating system, and then using it to revive another computer that is loaded up with all your important files and favorite programs.

    You don't like stem cell research? Fine. I won't run to the government and have them rob you for that, if you promise not to have the government rob me for anything else. Anything. After all, I might find church fundraising potluck dinners to be a blight upon this Earth, or your mother's primary means of income to be a massive pyramid scam. Do we have a deal?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:10 PM, October 13, 2006  

  • Bush Bans Menstruation as Last Minute Election Surprise

    Read about it here

    By Blogger Brian Hamilton, at 12:20 PM, November 06, 2006  

  • You are right about the moral issues.
    I see that people have critisised you but this is out of ignorance.

    This is something people will always disagree on because they dont think it through.

    People that actually disagree with this will often have partners that are on the pill but they still disagree with the research.

    By Anonymous Male Enhancement, at 11:33 AM, November 29, 2006  

  • i don't know if anyone has come across this yet, but you really make no sense. from what you're saying, you might as well make safe sex illegal too if you're guna make something like masturbation illegal. the condom kills the sperm, or more like we throw them out.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:34 AM, January 21, 2007  

  • um no, eggs are NOT human. your attempt at sarcasm was pathetic

    By Blogger get in mah belly, at 1:58 PM, February 11, 2007  

  • Yes, I am reading this late....

    I used to work for Planned Parenthood and we were "observing" an anti-abortion demonstration as part of a fundraising campaign in the early 90's (pledge money per protester to counter their attacks on choice).

    I remember being extremely confused by a sign that a young boy(probably around ~10)was carrying that read: "Menstruation is Murder".

    So, unfortunately your idea is not new.

    Yes, the thinking was that women should move from one pregnancy to another - otherwise they are murdering unborn children by "destroying" eggs.

    I'm pretty sure the kid had no idea what menstruation meant.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:33 PM, April 30, 2007  

  • 1stly I agree with stem cell research. I agree with abortion. I agree with CHOICE. A non fully developed human (or whatever you class the embryo/fetus as) is physically joined to its parent and is therefore part of its parent. In my opinion It (he/she/child/embryo/fetus/being) legally belongs to the parent until it can live (for more than a few minutes) outside of the mother. I also believe parents (or just the mother) has the right to abort a brain dead baby at ANY point. Similar issues exist with conjoined twins when 1 twin can survive on its own but both cannot, esp. when 1 is a parasitic brain-dead lump of flesh (sorry for the gore).

    Whatever my views on (pre-birth) life and massive neural birth defects (disagreeable as they may be) I'm arguing for personal choice. In all reality democracy (as it stands) gives the (average) individual, and even the nation almost as little choice and control as dictatorship. Voting for a party to vote for you on important issues when only 2 parties wield power is an embryonic form of people-power that hopefully with modern tech. will lead to a fully functioning political system where individual can vote on issues. Contentious issues should be settled by education followed by public referendum on laws (and proposed amendments). These laws should not interfere with the individual's (mother's/parent's) right to choose what happens to a fetus with massive neural under/mal/no development.

    On the subject of Iraq:

    Helping a nation to democracy is fine - lead by example, improve our democratic system before forcing it upon other nations.
    Trade embargoes must be coupled with well directed charity & aid to avoid/minimize civilian death.
    Theft, hegemony & murder gives justification for revenge and makes it more likely. More people will be willing to fight and die for their nation or religion. US international hegemony is rampant & highly corrupt.
    Preemptive war is paranoid genocide.

    The main problem is we want a sustainable, affordable future for humanity and earth whilst drug, power and 'defense' companies want to sustain a financial growth curve. These interests are mutually exclusive and they wield most of the power. Its not viable to provide cheap, permanent cures in comparison with life long drug dependency. On top of this we have religions who think they own the rights to life, death & God. Thank GOODNESS I'm not religious.

    By Blogger sn2u4u, at 5:22 AM, May 22, 2007  

  • 1stly I agree with stem cell research. I agree with abortion. I agree with CHOICE. A non fully developed human (or whatever you class the embryo/fetus as) is physically joined to its parent and is therefore part of its parent. In my opinion It (he/she/child/embryo/fetus/being) legally belongs to the parent until it can live (for more than a few minutes) outside of the mother. I also believe parents (or just the mother) has the right to abort a brain dead baby at ANY point. Similar issues exist with conjoined twins when 1 twin can survive on its own but both cannot, esp. when 1 is a parasitic brain-dead lump of flesh (sorry for the gore).

    Whatever my views on (pre-birth) life and massive neural birth defects (disagreeable as they may be) I'm arguing for personal choice. In all reality democracy (as it stands) gives the (average) individual, and even the nation almost as little choice and control as dictatorship. Voting for a party to vote for you on important issues when only 2 parties wield power is an embryonic form of people-power that hopefully with modern tech. will lead to a fully functioning political system where individual can vote on issues. Contentious issues should be settled by education followed by public referendum on laws (and proposed amendments). These laws should not interfere with the individual's (mother's/parent's) right to choose what happens to a fetus with massive neural under/mal/no development.

    On the subject of Iraq:

    Helping a nation to democracy is fine - lead by example, improve our democratic system before forcing it upon other nations.
    Trade embargoes must be coupled with well directed charity & aid to avoid/minimize civilian death.
    Theft, hegemony & murder gives justification for revenge and makes it more likely. More people will be willing to fight and die for their nation or religion. US international hegemony is rampant & highly corrupt.
    Preemptive war is paranoid genocide.

    The main problem is we want a sustainable, affordable future for humanity and earth whilst drug, power and 'defense' companies want to sustain a financial growth curve. These interests are mutually exclusive and they wield most of the power. Its not viable to provide cheap, permanent cures in comparison with life long drug dependency. On top of this we have religions who think they own the rights to life, death & God. Thank GOODNESS I'm not religious.

    By Blogger sn2u4u, at 5:24 AM, May 22, 2007  

  • Those who are on the wrong side of this issue are selling out the United States to China and Europe. If we don't push back against knuckle-dragging traitors such as "Mr. Fantastic!", American science will become the laughing stock of the world. Religious nutjobs are fighting every day to ensure that more and more breakthroughs in research will take place overseas and that our society crumbles into oblivion. Conservatives are anti-American TRAITORS. (If I had no class or style, I might coin the phrase 'conservatraitors' to counter their glut of childish talk-radio-generated epithets)

    The cat's out of the bag. Embryonic stem cell research is going on as we speak and will continue to go on. Your indignant self-righteousness is not impressing your god who isn't there. You are doing nothing but making yourself ridiculous.

    Fertilized eggs are NOT human.

    Oh wait, I'm sorry, they ARE human because the bible says they are.

    Oh wait, the ultimate moral authority on everything and the very word of the omniscient deity is silent on this important issue? (It must be time to ask the Pope his personal opinion- just kidding)

    I suppose without the crutch of divine authority to lean on, we're forced to sort this one out by ourselves.

    I have a bold proposal. I say we leave it to people who are good at that sort of thing, you know, THINKING.

    Stupac2 deftly kicked the wind out of the "potential life" argument.

    You conservatraitors have nothing.

    Check mate.

    By Anonymous Harry The Partridge, at 4:33 PM, August 16, 2007  

  • Actually, the Bible says nothing of the sort. Still though, anti-abortion remains entirely consistent to the Christian ethic and moral philosophy (in retrospect).

    Anti-abortion doesn't need to be explicitly written into the Bible to know that that's the natural position. In the same way that Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto wouldn't have to explicitly endorse it to know that he, as a Communist-Primitivist, would have supported it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:20 PM, April 14, 2008  

  • The menstruation could result disgusting for many woman, even for men. But when the sex we talking about, many men try to evoid their couples saying the menstruation can be the reason. But the real reason can be a sexual problem like erectil dysfunction, in this particular case when this disease present to buy viagra is considerated for many doctors like the better alternative. So the woman can respond very well, but the men need to be more powerful every time.

    By Blogger kimberly, at 12:53 PM, August 30, 2010  

  • By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:02 AM, March 20, 2011  

  • These kind of post are always inspiring and I prefer to read quality content so I happy to find many good point here in the post, writing is simply great, thank you for the post penis enlargement penis enlargement pills VigRX Plus

    By Blogger Dave, at 9:31 AM, October 02, 2011  

  • Thanks for sharing your knowledge

    By Anonymous Data Recovery Software, at 2:59 AM, October 12, 2011  

  • I also think that is we outlaw masturbation because it kills "unborn children", we also need to outlaw anal sex for the same reason - also, it's gross because there's poo in there, but that's beside the point.

    By Anonymous viagra online, at 10:51 AM, December 23, 2011  

  • So, I do not actually believe it is likely to work.

    By Anonymous spookyva, at 9:45 AM, April 15, 2012  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home