Jump to content


The Democrat Utopia


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

This is why I cannot vote for a ardent pro-choice, pro-abortion candidate of which the Dem party has basically become nothing but. 

This is beyond morbid to morally corrupt.  While the article notes the 'scientific benefits' of using aborted fetuses for research, it notes

the ethical dilemma as well.  When 'big science/academia/research, big pharma, big business' is involved, and this is big business,  then

I wonder how much consideration is given to the health and welfare of the mother.  We already know what happens to the developing baby.

The Dems are not opposed to big business when it supports their pet cause. 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8367760/aborted-baby-body-parts-sewn-mice-experiments-us-labs/

 

 

Related - A new movie about 'the industry'.  Based on the true story of Abby Johnson - former Planned Parenthood clinic director

 

And interview with the main actress, who was seconds from being aborted herself when she was in the womb (unknown to her until

her mom told her the story after she took the role for the movie)

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5980978287001/#sp=show-clips

 

 

 

 

TGH, I’m willing to look this up when I get home, but I have to ask, do you know what The Sun is? It’s UK’s version of National Enquirer. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

Yes, I know the Sun is 'one of those papers'.   Note they give the other side of the story also - from the researchers' perspective.   If it is true it doesn't matter who reports it does it  as long as it is reported representative of the facts and perspective of both sides.  - abortion favoring big papers like NYT, W Post, etc sure won't write a negative story about it. 

 

Other sources.   I would think Scientific America would be a valid source. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-fetal-tissue-research/

Quote

 

Every month, Lishan Su receives a small test tube on ice from a company in California. In it is a piece of liver from a human fetus aborted at between 14 and 19 weeks of pregnancy.

Su and his staff at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill carefully grind the liver, centrifuge it and then extract and purify liver- and blood-forming stem cells. They inject the cells into the livers of newborn mice, and allow those mice to mature. The resulting animals are the only ‘humanized’ mice with both functioning human liver and immune cells and, for Su, they are invaluable in his work on hepatitis B and C, allowing him to probe how the viruses evade the human immune system and cause chronic liver diseases.

“Using fetal tissue is not an easy choice, but so far there is no better choice,” says Su, who has tried, and failed, to make a humanized mouse with other techniques. “Many, many biomedical researchers depend on fetal tissue research to really save human lives,” he says. “And I think many of them feel the same way.”

 

 

 

 

NYT did a story on the hold on govt funding for such research

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/health/f

 

Quote

 

Should the government pay for medical research that uses tissue from aborted fetuses? This debate, ever smoldering, has erupted again, pitting anti-abortion forces in the Trump administration against scientists who say the tissue is essential for studies that benefit millions of patients.

In a letter last week that read like a shot across the bow, the National Institutes of Health warned the University California, San Francisco, that its $2 million contract for research involving the tissue, previously renewed for a year at a time, would be extended for only 90 days and might then be canceled.

University scientists had been using fetal tissue to create so-called humanized mice, which can then be used to test drugs and vaccines. The university has played a key role in testing antiviral drugs to treat H.I.V. infection. And researchers say that the mice, which essentially have a complete human immune system, are indispensable.

 

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

TGH, I’m willing to look this up when I get home, but I have to ask, do you know what The Sun is? It’s UK’s version of National Enquirer. 

@TGHusker, I searched the internet and only the usual conservative propaganda outlets are reporting this, and they're simply copy-and-paste versions of the same story, which is usually a strong sign this is a hoax. But I haven't seen a fact-check yet.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

This is why I cannot vote for a ardent pro-choice, pro-abortion candidate of which the Dem party has basically become nothing but. 

 

I can't comment about the veracity of the article you posted, but regarding the first line of your post: I am a registered Democrat, and know many, many other Democrats. I don't know a single person who is pro-abortion.

  • Plus1 5
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

@TGHusker, I searched the internet and only the usual conservative propaganda outlets are reporting this, and they're simply copy-and-paste versions of the same story, which is usually a strong sign this is a hoax. But I haven't seen a fact-check yet.

See the Scientific American link I provided in my 2nd post.

Link to comment

7 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Yes, I know the Sun is 'one of those papers'.   Note they give the other side of the story also - from the researchers' perspective.   If it is true it doesn't matter who reports it does it  as long as it is reported representative of the facts and perspective of both sides.  - abortion favoring big papers like NYT, W Post, etc sure won't write a negative story about it. 

 

Other sources.   I would think Scientific America would be a valid source. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-fetal-tissue-research/

 

 

 

NYT did a story on the hold on govt funding for such research

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/health/f

 

 

 

Note that these aren't all the same as "grafting human tissue onto mice" as claimed in the conservative outlets. They're injecting human tissue into mice to make them a better match to human biology for lab testing, which reduces the risk of human trials.

 

If you're upset that fetal tissue is used, then you should be equally upset that human bodies and tissues are used for medical research after people die. This is absolutely no different. And that's if you consider the fetus a person, if you don't think the fetus was a person, then it's even less than that - more like using a removed liver, kidney, mole, etc.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Ulty said:

 

I can't comment about the veracity of the article you posted, but regarding the first line of your post: I am a registered Democrat, and know many, many other Democrats. I don't know a single person who is pro-abortion.

I think if one uses the term pro-choice you become pro-abortion by default in order to carry out the desired goal - woman's choice to decide what to do wt the baby in the womb.   - pro-choice is a softer way of saying it.  Those on the other side will say pro-life people are 'anti-choice'.    In saying this I don't pretend to say there aren't real decisions to be made (choices) when it comes to the health of the mother.  But when abortion is used as a 'birth control' process, capitalized on by big research (big academia) and big business (planned  parenthood for one) I can't help but think that the welfare of the mother becomes secondary even more so the life of the baby in the womb. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, dankebe said:
fe·tus

Dictionary result for fetus

/ˈfēdəs/
noun
 
  1. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

 

 

Probably should consider it person if it's the actual definition.  Kinda makes sense. 

 

 

The definition is what is being debated, so this is a bad argument.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

20 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Yes, I know the Sun is 'one of those papers'.   Note they give the other side of the story also - from the researchers' perspective.   If it is true it doesn't matter who reports it does it  as long as it is reported representative of the facts and perspective of both sides.  - abortion favoring big papers like NYT, W Post, etc sure won't write a negative story about it. 

 

Other sources.   I would think Scientific America would be a valid source. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-fetal-tissue-research/

 

 

 

NYT did a story on the hold on govt funding for such research

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/health/f

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re: It doesn’t matter who’s reporting it as long as it’s reporting the facts.

 

Who is reporting it helps us determine whether it’s fact or not. Leave the tabloids out and it’ll be easier to take it seriously. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, dankebe said:

Fine....what happens if the mother does nothing?  Gives birth to a human.  End of story.

 

 

What happens if the man doesn’t pull out?

 

I agree most of the time an abortion doesn’t occur, a baby is born, but not always. And I am pro life. But this is not a black and white issue. E.g., I think the parents should be able to decide to save the mother over the baby. 

 

And I understand why there is debate on when human life starts. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Seriously.

 

Is ejaculating somewhere else preventing a baby from being born?

 

No egg gets fertilized so..... whats your point?  My point is I believe life begins at conception, I will never change that view.  I doubt I will change yours.  Agree to disagree I guess.  

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...