Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

GOP candidate: "God Intended" Pregnancies from RapeFollow

#1 Oct 24 2012 at 5:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,947 posts
This seems to be a common view among GOP candidates these days...
Quote:
Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said pregnancies resulting from rape are part of God's plan, tearfully explaining that he only supports abortions when a mother's life is in danger.
"I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen," Mourdock said during Tuesday's Senate debate, choking up. Mourdock's opponent, Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly, opposes abortion except in cases of rape and incest.

After the debate, Mourdock further explained his comment.

"Are you trying to suggest somehow that God preordained rape, no I don't think that," said Mourdock, according to The Associated Press. "Anyone who would suggest that is just sick and twisted. No, that's not even close to what I said."


I did find it vexing however that the Democratic candidate also opposes abortion, although he adds "in the cases of rape and incest" to the mix. Of course, Romney has personally endorsed this guy running for office, which the Democrats helpfully pointed out:
Quote:
Democrats wasted no time linking GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney to Mourdock. Earlier this week, Romney personally appeared in a TV ad for the Indiana state treasurer, offering his endorsement.

"Richard Mourdock's rape comments are outrageous and demeaning to women. Unfortunately, they've become part and parcel of the modern Republican Party's platform toward women's health, as Congressional Republicans like Paul Ryan have worked to outlaw all abortions and even narrow the definition of rape," Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in a statement released to press.

"As Mourdock's most prominent booster and the star of Mourdock's current campaign ads, Mitt Romney should immediately denounce these comments and request that the ad featuring him speaking directly to camera on Mourdock's behalf be taken off the air," she added.
...
The Obama campaign hit Romney on abortion soon after, releasing a TV ad of its own that features footage from a 2007 GOP presidential primary debate in which Romney said he would be "delighted" to sign a bill banning all abortions in the U.S.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#2 Oct 24 2012 at 5:59 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Non-story for me. I mean, this is a natural extension of the belief in an omnipotent, all-deciding god, right? Its the same as when someone dies, and folks say "it was part of god's plan."

It sounds crude, and I certainly disagree with it, but this isn't half as damning as it's made out to be.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#3 Oct 24 2012 at 6:19 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
I do find it amusing though that a GOP canidate can run on the platform that God intended Sally to get raped by her dad and get pregnant. I find it even more amusing that the general opinion about it around here is apathy. I guess there is only so many times before your drunk roommate running around the house naked brings not anger or hilarity but indifference.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#4 Oct 24 2012 at 6:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Saying that God intended the pregnancy but not the rape is a bit internally inconsistent. So if she didn't get raped, God's intentions were going to go unheeded? Or did God perk up during the rape and say "Yes! Chance for a baby! Bing!"

More pragmatically, Indiana is a much tighter senate race than expected and this could cinch it for Donnelly. The way the senate races are going this cycle, the Democrats may actually add seats when they were originally even money to lose control earlier this year.

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 7:48am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Oct 24 2012 at 7:17 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,925 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Saying that God intended the pregnancy but not the rape is a bit internally inconsistent. So if she didn't get raped, God's intentions were going to go unheeded? Or did God perk up during the rape and say "Yes! Chance for a baby! Bing!"

I think I feel a song coming on...


____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#6 Oct 24 2012 at 7:49 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Criminy wrote:
I do find it amusing though that a GOP canidate can run on the platform that God intended Sally to get raped by her dad and get pregnant. I find it even more amusing that the general opinion about it around here is apathy. I guess there is only so many times before your drunk roommate running around the house naked brings not anger or hilarity but indifference.


What else are people who believe in an omnipotent, all-deciding god to believe?

People who believe in god either believe that he's in the thick of it, guiding every action in the world, or that he's relatively indifferent to all the bad stuff that happens (or that he's not all-powerful, but I don't think many subscribe to that one). Something has to explain why bad things happen to good people. It's one of the hardest thing to reconcile about religion.

It's either Sally got raped because god decided it, or Sally got raped because god didn't give a toss. Either one sounds awful when vocalized, but they're inherent beliefs for anyone who believes in god.

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 9:51am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#7 Oct 24 2012 at 7:50 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Bing!


This is oddly specific, but reading this reminded me of that one Friends episode where Chandler's boss started calling him by his last name and it caught on with the rest of the office.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#8 Oct 24 2012 at 8:00 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
And to think, people like this are elected to represent us.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#9 Oct 24 2012 at 8:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eske Esquire wrote:
People who believe in god either believe that he's in the thick of it, guiding every action in the world, or that he's relatively indifferent to all the bad stuff that happens (or that he's not all-powerful, but I don't think many subscribe to that one). Something has to explain why bad things happen to good people. It's one of the hardest thing to reconcile about religion.

The standard argument would be that God is aware of what's going on but not making it happen (although he has that power and does use it as he wishes). Jesus says that God is aware when a sparrow falls, not that God individually crushes each tiny bird skull. Doing so would negate the premise of free will, sin and redemption.

Bad things happen to good people because that's life with free will. The promise of Christianity is that, although you're virtually guaranteed to find suffering in this life, your faith and actions (including how you react to the ills of the world) will reward you with a positive afterlife that lasts far longer than your time on Earth.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Oct 24 2012 at 8:37 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
People who believe in god either believe that he's in the thick of it, guiding every action in the world, or that he's relatively indifferent to all the bad stuff that happens (or that he's not all-powerful, but I don't think many subscribe to that one). Something has to explain why bad things happen to good people. It's one of the hardest thing to reconcile about religion.

The standard argument would be that God is aware of what's going on but not making it happen (although he has that power and does use it as he wishes). Jesus says that God is aware when a sparrow falls, not that God individually crushes each tiny bird skull. Doing so would negate the premise of free will, sin and redemption.

Bad things happen to good people because that's life with free will. The promise of Christianity is that, although you're virtually guaranteed to find suffering in this life, your faith and actions (including how you react to the ills of the world) will reward you with a positive afterlife that lasts far longer than your time on Earth.


Aye, the "watchmaker theory", right? But that's just one notion.

I'm far removed from the religious scene, but the impression I've got is that many, if not most, religious folks subscribe to the other theory, or some wishy-washy combination of the two. Athletes and actors thank god for their wins, not because they're thankful that he gave humanity free will and then walked away, but because they believe he played some active role in process. Many cite god for miracles, and for horrors visited on people that they don't like.

That's all just to say that it seems like this guy voiced a common belief, one that most people don't have issue with until it involves rape. Nobody cries foul when a child dies, and mourners comfort themselves by saying "I guess it was just God's will." But they're one and the same.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#11 Oct 24 2012 at 8:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Athletes and actors thank god for their wins, not because they're thankful that he gave humanity free will and then walked away, but because they believe he played some active role in process. that appearing humble will help their career.


FTFY

Also Mourdock has a few screws loose.

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 7:56am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#12 Oct 24 2012 at 8:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I've no desire to get deep into the theological weeds here. The primary difference between your examples is that Mourdock is using this philosophy in a desire to restrict rape victims from seeking abortions. Words of gratitude after a win or comfort after a loss don't elicit the same introspection because they don't have the same consequences.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Oct 24 2012 at 9:17 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,775 posts
What disgusts me is that it is meant to phrase the pregnancy as a gift from God. Like you should feel like you're a terrible person if you're unhappy that your rape resulted in a pregnancy.

Because, you know, it wasn't enough to say that, terrible situation or not, that fetus had a right to life. Now you have to attack the women for being victims and not rejoicing over it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#14 Oct 24 2012 at 9:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,315 posts
If God has his role in everything, then God invented abortion and we ought to be using it.

On the other hand, if the devil possesses men (and women) to go out and commit atrocities, then the atrocities wasn't God's plan at all.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#15 Oct 24 2012 at 9:40 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I've no desire to get deep into the theological weeds here. The primary difference between your examples is that Mourdock is using this philosophy in a desire to restrict rape victims from seeking abortions. Words of gratitude after a win or comfort after a loss don't elicit the same introspection because they don't have the same consequences.


A fair point. I think things get dicey after putting forth belief that "life begins after conception" - it's a belief that could come from non-religious thinking, even though Mourdock definitely seems to get to it through religion. He may be using religious means to drive his policy, but the end result is something that some non-religious people believe too (that life begins at conception). His policy is no more offensive to me than an anti-abortion position that's steeped in non-religious rhetoric.

And as previously mentioned, I don't think that his assertion is demeaning, as it's in line with a widely-accepted belief system. So logically, I don't think there's any reason to be offended. I understand why there's a different reaction between what he said and, per my example, what an athlete or actor says when they invoke god. But I don't think that reaction is based on logic: I think it's too emotional, and prone to misconstruing his words into something more like "Rape pregnancy is a good thing, because God."

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 11:41am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#16 Oct 24 2012 at 9:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,775 posts
I disagree--I do think the assertion is demeaning at its core. Not necessarily because of what he said outright, but because of what his claims also logically says.

I don't believe he's saying that pregnancy via rape is a good thing.

What I do think he's doing is completely disenfranchising the women who actually face this situation. He's telling those women that the fact that they are pregnant is a good thing--God ordained that they would bring life into the world. What God ordains is fundamentally good, and rebelling against god is sin.

What he's done is taken away the right of a rape victim to curse her own circumstances. He's said to them that they have the right to lament the rape, but not the baby. Even worse, his comments completely ignore the 9 months of **** (not to mention any other long-term emotional stressers from knowing a child exists that is half yours and half your rapists).

He's completely taken away their right to judge their own situation according to their own faculties. That's fundamentally demeaning.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#17 Oct 24 2012 at 9:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eske Esquire wrote:
And as previously mentioned, I don't think that his assertion is demeaning, as it's in line with a widely-accepted belief system. So logically, I don't think there's any reason to be offended. I understand why there's a different reaction between what he said and, per my example, what an athlete or actor says when they invoke god. But I don't think that reaction is based on logic: I think it's too emotional, and prone to misconstruing his words into something more like "Rape pregnancy is a good thing, because God."

I don't necessarily agree with this but, without arguing it, I'll just point out that...
Quote:
But I don't think that reaction is based on logic: I think it's too emotional, and prone to misconstruing his words into something more like "Rape pregnancy is a good thing, because God."
...alone made it a profoundly stupid thing to say in the political arena. "It's just logical" won't mitigate the political damage in a tight senate race.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Oct 24 2012 at 10:29 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
But I don't think that reaction is based on logic: I think it's too emotional, and prone to misconstruing his words into something more like "Rape pregnancy is a good thing, because God."
...alone made it a profoundly stupid thing to say in the political arena. "It's just logical" won't mitigate the political damage in a tight senate race.


I can certainly agree to that.

idigorry wrote:
I disagree--I do think the assertion is demeaning at its core. Not necessarily because of what he said outright, but because of what his claims also logically says.

I don't believe he's saying that pregnancy via rape is a good thing.

What I do think he's doing is completely disenfranchising the women who actually face this situation. He's telling those women that the fact that they are pregnant is a good thing--God ordained that they would bring life into the world. What God ordains is fundamentally good, and rebelling against god is sin.

What he's done is taken away the right of a rape victim to curse her own circumstances. He's said to them that they have the right to lament the rape, but not the baby. Even worse, his comments completely ignore the 9 months of **** (not to mention any other long-term emotional stressers from knowing a child exists that is half yours and half your rapists).

He's completely taken away their right to judge their own situation according to their own faculties. That's fundamentally demeaning.


I'm not so sure of that. His statement specifically addresses whether or not abortion should be allowed, irrespective of other feelings; any conjecture about his opinion on what women can lament is unsubstantiated by his words.

Folks like this couch their thoughts in the preciousness of "life". To them, it overrules the impact on the woman, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're wholly indifferent to her. Foremost, they want the child to be born, and thereafter, to be loved.

That's cognitive dissonance, perhaps. But I don't think it's demeaning.

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 12:29pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#19 Oct 24 2012 at 10:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Folks like this couch their thoughts in the preciousness of "life". To them, it overrules the impact on the woman, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're wholly indifferent to her. Foremost, they want the child to be born, and thereafter, to be loved.

That's cognitive dissonance, perhaps. But I don't think it's demeaning.


I have no problem with the 'preciousness of life' aspect, but I think it's demeaning because they aren't allowing the victim come to that conclusion (or not come to that conclusion) on her own.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#20 Oct 24 2012 at 10:41 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Folks like this couch their thoughts in the preciousness of "life". To them, it overrules the impact on the woman, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're wholly indifferent to her. Foremost, they want the child to be born, and thereafter, to be loved.

That's cognitive dissonance, perhaps. But I don't think it's demeaning.


I have no problem with the 'preciousness of life' aspect, but I think it's demeaning because they aren't allowing the victim come to that conclusion (or not come to that conclusion) on her own.


To them it's a life. Why would they leave the conclusion up to an individual? In their mind, abortion is a death, and it's the responsibility of the government to prevent needless death through legislation, where possible.

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 12:42pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#21 Oct 24 2012 at 10:45 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,775 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Folks like this couch their thoughts in the preciousness of "life". To them, it overrules the impact on the woman, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're wholly indifferent to her. Foremost, they want the child to be born, and thereafter, to be loved.

That's cognitive dissonance, perhaps. But I don't think it's demeaning.


I have no problem with the 'preciousness of life' aspect, but I think it's demeaning because they aren't allowing the victim come to that conclusion (or not come to that conclusion) on her own.


This is kinda what I was feeling.

You can ground the evil of a rape in free will, and so take the blame of it away from God (assuming you accept that the problem of evil has an answer, which you must if you believe in a Christian definition of God). But what Mourdock is saying is that the child resulting from a rape is intended.

If it's a sin to curse God and his works, then that means it would be a sin to curse the pregnancy and your current situation. Saying that things are the way God intended is the same as saying you have no right to them being otherwise--that to NOT be pregnant* would be evil.

And I think there's an important distinction here that really speaks to the point I'm trying to make. This isn't just about abortion, which would be going against God's will. This is something fundamental to the existence of the pregnancy in the first place. Namely, it's saying that it would have been a perversion of the world for this state of affairs not to have come about. If you had just been raped, without the additional emotional baggage, it would have been more evil than being raped and ending up pregnant.

I think that's incredibly demeaning.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#22 Oct 24 2012 at 10:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Folks like this couch their thoughts in the preciousness of "life". To them, it overrules the impact on the woman, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're wholly indifferent to her. Foremost, they want the child to be born, and thereafter, to be loved.

That's cognitive dissonance, perhaps. But I don't think it's demeaning.


I have no problem with the 'preciousness of life' aspect, but I think it's demeaning because they aren't allowing the victim come to that conclusion (or not come to that conclusion) on her own.


To them it's a life. Why would they leave the conclusion up to an individual? In their mind, abortion is a death, and it's the responsibility of the government to prevent needless death through legislation, where possible.


The minute they put a ban on research involving any human cell line I can at least give them kudos for being consistent. Until then they simply seem to be obsessed with one form of human life and negligent of another; in my mind at least. Making me suspect it's more about control than any sort of real regard for human life. The minute human life can be sacrificed to save them from cancer or something it suddenly becomes more kosher to kill somehow.

Honestly, if some of those people were aware of half of what we do... *shudder*

Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 10:12am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#23 Oct 24 2012 at 11:05 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
All life is sacred until it leaves the womb and again when it's old enough to vote.

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 1:05pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#24 Oct 24 2012 at 11:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Wait. I thought real rape never results in a baby? Gosh, that darn ol' GOP has me all confused again.Smiley: frown
____________________________
Sandinmygum wrote:
VorxDargo1 wrote:
who the h3ll do you think you are anyway?
According to your logic, I'm like an FFXIV God. You can call me Sand. I want sand, buckets of it. And Everclear..lots and lots of everclear.
#25 Oct 24 2012 at 1:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,315 posts
If God wants to gift me with a baby so **** much, He can leave it in a basket on my doorstep instead of sending a rapist to deliver it.

Plus, that way I don't have to wait nine months to open the present!
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#26 Oct 24 2012 at 1:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Or shoot it over to you via reed-filled river bank in a basket.

Have you even BEEN to a river bank recently? Your child is probably seven by now!

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 2:33pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#27 Oct 24 2012 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,315 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Or shoot it over to you via reed-filled river bank in a basket.

Have you even BEEN to a river bank recently? Your child is probably seven by now!

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 2:33pm by Jophiel


Just last week we went to Savannah. No babies on the riverbanks there.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#28 Oct 24 2012 at 2:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,422 posts
catwho wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Or shoot it over to you via reed-filled river bank in a basket.

Have you even BEEN to a river bank recently? Your child is probably seven by now!

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 2:33pm by Jophiel


Just last week we went to Savannah. No babies on the riverbanks there.
That's probably because you weren't looking for seven year olds.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#29 Oct 24 2012 at 3:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
This is really just another GOP talking point for "she was asking for it".
#30 Oct 24 2012 at 3:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
The minute they put a ban on research involving any human cell line I can at least give them kudos for being consistent. Until then they simply seem to be obsessed with one form of human life and negligent of another; in my mind at least. Making me suspect it's more about control than any sort of real regard for human life. The minute human life can be sacrificed to save them from cancer or something it suddenly becomes more kosher to kill somehow.


I'm reasonably certain that the same people who oppose abortion in all cases (including rape and incest) oppose the use of embryonic stem cells for scientific research as well. Did you actually think otherwise?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Oct 24 2012 at 3:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
The minute they put a ban on research involving any human cell line I can at least give them kudos for being consistent. Until then they simply seem to be obsessed with one form of human life and negligent of another; in my mind at least. Making me suspect it's more about control than any sort of real regard for human life. The minute human life can be sacrificed to save them from cancer or something it suddenly becomes more kosher to kill somehow.


I'm reasonably certain that the same people who oppose abortion in all cases (including rape and incest) oppose the use of embryonic stem cells for scientific research as well. Did you actually think otherwise?


I never used the word embryonic.

It's not unreasonable to argue embryonic stem cells aren't necessary for development into a fetus. Besides I like more fun debates, like what percentage of human DNA does an organism need to have before we consider it human? Smiley: grin
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#32 Oct 24 2012 at 3:39 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,315 posts
"Mary was essentially raped."
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#33gbaji, Posted: Oct 24 2012 at 3:51 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Huh? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I think you're missing the point. At present, the only way to obtain human embryonic stem cells is to harvest them from human embryos. The process destroys the embryo, thus preventing it from ever becoming a fetus (and obviously also prevents it from developing into a human child). Which is where the ethical problems arise. Also, we currently do research on left over embryos from IVF procedures. But what happens if/when we develop some new cure and that doesn't create a sufficient supply? Don't we then create a new ethical problem?
#34 Oct 24 2012 at 4:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
gbaji wrote:
We don't consume a human life to harvest adult stem cells. So it's not the same thing. Thus, it's not inconsistent to be ok with one but opposed to the other.


Yeah, this is what I was referring to. The idea that for some reason the cells descended from adult cells aren't "alive" in that sense, so killing them is okay. Given recent advances in plasticity of adult stem cells (brought upon in large part by moral objections to using embryonic cells ironically enough) one should probably start wondering if killing off part of an adult cell line is in anyway different than murdering a fetus.

From a scientific perspective you could argue we're just a couple of hops away from having the two be indistinguishable. Arguably, those hops may only still be there because of the moral concerns they bring up.

Only musing because research tends to bring up these fun thorny legal questions long before the concerns reach the general populace.

Also, I know some transgenic rats who are in need of citizenship papers. Smiley: nod

Also also, it's not just me that wonders about some of these things... Linky

Oh, and to TL:DR the linked article: I'm not just making this sh*t up... Smiley: lol

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 3:28pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#35 Oct 24 2012 at 4:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
We don't consume a human life to harvest adult stem cells. So it's not the same thing. Thus, it's not inconsistent to be ok with one but opposed to the other.


Yeah, this is what I was referring to. The idea that for some reason the cells descended from adult cells aren't "alive" in that sense, so killing them is okay. Given recent advances in plasticity of adult stem cells (brought upon in large part by moral objections to using embryonic cells ironically enough) one should probably start wondering if killing off part of an adult cell line is in anyway different than murdering a fetus.


I think you're looking at it backwards though. Humans don't naturally produce new humans via some form of twinning of our adult cells. If I hack off my arm, it wont grow into a copy of me. Thus, there's no loss of potential human life if we experiment on adult stem cells.

Quote:
From a scientific perspective you could argue we're just a couple of hops away from having the two be indistinguishable. Arguably, those hops may only still be there because of the moral concerns they bring up.


I think there's a huge difference between taking an action which prevents a human life from existing and failing to take an action which would create one. I also think you are grossly misunderstanding the properties of adult stem cells. I'm not discounting anything as possible, of course, but I think the major ethical concern at issue here isn't what could we do with some cells, but what process we have to use to obtain those cells in the first place.

The concern with regard to ESC is that you must create a viable embryo (with the potential of being implanted and becoming a human) and then destroy it in order to obtain them. You're essentially allowing the natural development of a human life to proceed to a certain point, and then stopping it. No other stem cell requires this. We can obtain adult stem cells without impacting the adult human at all. We can harvest umbilical and/or amniotic stem cells without halting the development of said embryo into a fetus and then a living human. That's where the ethical dilemma is.

That's not to say that uses of stem cells might create additional dilemmas, but those are in addition to the ones involving embryonic stem cells.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Oct 24 2012 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
gbaji wrote:
Humans don't naturally produce new humans via some form of twinning of our adult cells. If I hack off my arm, it wont grow into a copy of me.


What if it could? You know, extract some cells from that arm, play with them in a tube, and implant... The only difference between that and the fetus then is a couple of decades out of the womb.

gbaji wrote:
I also think you are grossly misunderstanding the properties of adult stem cells. I'm not discounting anything as possible, of course, but I think the major ethical concern at issue here isn't what could we do with some cells, but what process we have to use to obtain those cells in the first place.


I'm not grossly misunderstanding anything. I am talking about what is within the realm of actual research. We have needs for stem cells that are as omnipotent as possible, so it's going to be continued to be looked at. Perhaps I'm optimistic we'll continue to make advances in this realm? Doesn't seem so far-fetched when you consider what on the table at the moment.

You read the chimera musings yet? Good stuff. Smiley: wink
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#37 Oct 24 2012 at 5:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Humans don't naturally produce new humans via some form of twinning of our adult cells. If I hack off my arm, it wont grow into a copy of me.


What if it could? You know, extract some cells from that arm, play with them in a tube, and implant... The only difference between that and the fetus then is a couple of decades out of the womb.


Methodology is different as well. If we naturally reproduced via some asexual process by which our adult cells split into a new organism, then the ethical ramifications of harvesting those cells in some way which prevented said new organism from developing would be similar. But we don't, so they aren't.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
I also think you are grossly misunderstanding the properties of adult stem cells. I'm not discounting anything as possible, of course, but I think the major ethical concern at issue here isn't what could we do with some cells, but what process we have to use to obtain those cells in the first place.


I'm not grossly misunderstanding anything. I am talking about what is within the realm of actual research. We have needs for stem cells that are as omnipotent as possible, so it's going to be continued to be looked at. Perhaps I'm optimistic we'll continue to make advances in this realm? Doesn't seem so far-fetched when you consider what on the table at the moment.


Sure. I'll grant that there are lots of possibilities in that direction. But none of that addresses the issues which cause people to oppose embryonic stem cell research but not adult stem cell research. At the least, it's not inconsistent at all for that differentiation to be made.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 Oct 24 2012 at 6:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
gbaji wrote:
Methodology is different as well. If we naturally reproduced via some asexual process by which our adult cells split into a new organism, then the ethical ramifications of harvesting those cells in some way which prevented said new organism from developing would be similar. But we don't, so they aren't.


If we didn't reproduce via an asexual process you'd be a single cell still, we'd never have identical twins, etc. Smiley: tongue

gbaji wrote:
Sure. I'll grant that there are lots of possibilities in that direction. But none of that addresses the issues which cause people to oppose embryonic stem cell research but not adult stem cell research. At the least, it's not inconsistent at all for that differentiation to be made.


You do remember I wasn't talking about the embryonic stuff in the first place right? Smiley: rolleyes

Anyway, it's still entertaining enough though. Smiley: grin

End point being that if there's no scientific way to distinguish the two, how do you know which one is the IVF fetus and which one is the lump of cells that came from your arm? How can the law see the difference if a scientist can't? If I switch them, does one suddenly have rights on one doesn't? How do you know if I did?

What if we can aid development out of the womb? Does it stop being so special? (Yes, that's total sci-fi, but it's fun when you're bored, and you aren't biting on my monkey-man moral issue! Smiley: motz)

Meh, anyway I suppose you play with the goo of life enough it's hard to see yourself as so special anymore. Then you get bored at the end of the day and have fun being belligerent and blurring some black and white lines on the internet. Smiley: nod


____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#39 Oct 24 2012 at 7:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure. I'll grant that there are lots of possibilities in that direction. But none of that addresses the issues which cause people to oppose embryonic stem cell research but not adult stem cell research. At the least, it's not inconsistent at all for that differentiation to be made.


You do remember I wasn't talking about the embryonic stuff in the first place right? Smiley: rolleyes


Except you did say it was inconsistent for folks who oppose abortion to not oppose stem cell research. I pointed out that they do oppose embryonic stem cell research because it's similar to abortion (destroys something which might otherwise develop into a complete human life), but they don't oppose other forms which aren't similar to abortion. I thought that was pretty straightforward.

Quote:
End point being that if there's no scientific way to distinguish the two, how do you know which one is the IVF fetus and which one is the lump of cells that came from your arm? How can the law see the difference if a scientist can't? If I switch them, does one suddenly have rights on one doesn't? How do you know if I did?


At the point in which you can take some adult cells from my arm and manipulate them into a fully functional human embryo, such that if said embryo was implanted into a womb, it would grow into a complete human being *then* you'd have a point. But only with regard to the embryo once created. The cells in my arm don't count. And the stem cells you take from them don't count. And even the modified versions of those stem cells don't count. It's not an ethical issue until you create the embryo.

Beside the fact that there are much easier ways to create an embryo, the more common ethical dilemma goes in the other direction. Destroying an embryo to harvest stem cells is what many people have an issue with. The hypothetical case of using stem cells to create an embryo really is a whole different issue. Interesting, to be sure, but it doesn't contradict or even intersect with the ethical question and how it relates to opposition to abortion.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Oct 25 2012 at 12:37 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Eske wrote:
And as previously mentioned, I don't think that his assertion is demeaning, as it's in line with a widely-accepted belief system.


This is your brand of logic, is it?

Well, I think I'm gonna pass.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#41 Oct 25 2012 at 6:13 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Eske wrote:
And as previously mentioned, I don't think that his assertion is demeaning, as it's in line with a widely-accepted belief system.


This is your brand of logic, is it?

Well, I think I'm gonna pass.


It's awkwardly phrased, but I'm basing the assertion on the transitive property, there. A = B, and B = not demeaning, therefore A = not demeaning. The logic is sound, but you're free to debate its applicability.

Also, go fuck yourself.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#42 Oct 25 2012 at 7:00 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Huh? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here,
This is like your catch phrase.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#43 Oct 25 2012 at 7:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Huh? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here,
This is like your catch phrase.

You forgot where he throws a "WTF?" at the end. I always like it when he does that because it makes me think of him flailing his arms around like the Lost in Space robot saying "WTF! DOES NOT COMPUTE! DANGER! DANGER!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#44 Oct 25 2012 at 8:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
gbaji wrote:
At the point in which you can take some adult cells from my arm and manipulate them into a fully functional human embryo, such that if said embryo was implanted into a womb, it would grow into a complete human being *then* you'd have a point. But only with regard to the embryo once created. The cells in my arm don't count. And the stem cells you take from them don't count. And even the modified versions of those stem cells don't count. It's not an ethical issue until you create the embryo.


Right, and I see that as a meaningless and arbitrary distinction. If both are (assumption of course) fully capable of creating a whole person, why should someone's humanity be dependent on their location?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#45 Oct 25 2012 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
I think the bigger issue that this brings up is just how far to the right the GOP is swinging on abortion (not to mention the missed opportunity Moderates & Liberals have to attack the GOP on it). For years, there were actually three really "accepted" views on rape; pro-choice, pro-life except in instances of rape/incest mother's life, & pro-life in all cases. Pro-life in "all cases" was the extreme fringe view, yet its slowly becoming a more accepted view within the GOP.

For woman in this election, this comes down to a choice between a pro-choice ticket (Obama/Biden) & a pro life/very pro life ticket (Romney/Ryan). Now, Romney v.fall 2012 is a pro-life (with exceptions) candidate who, if he sticks with what he's said during his 6 years running for President as opposed to what he said when he was Governor, will nominate Supreme Court judges who'll overturn Roe v. Wade & sign legislation banning Abortion at the Federal level (except in instances of Rape/Incest).

Like his economic "plan", there's been no mention in the Romney camp as to how exactly this'll work. Questions;

Who decides if it was rape? We know the GOP doesn't trust the woman to make this distinction, so a judge? A cop? A medical examiner? How long will a woman have to wait in Romney's America to get the abortion that Romney "accepts"? Does statutory rape count? If abortions were banned federally except in cases of rape/incest/mother's life, how will woman in States that don't have abortion facilities (Louisianna, for 1) get their abortion? Will Louisianna have to get an abortion clinic to comply?

For that matter, who decides the woman's life is in danger? All pregnancies are potentially dangerous, so what kind of odds would be acceptable in Romney's abortion illegal America that would allow a woman to terminate a "dangerous" pregnancy? I'm sure a Doctor would need to recommend it, but what if a 2nd opinion is a requirement in this Law & those 2 opinions are different (or have different survival odds)?

The fact is, if Romney is elected, Abortions would be banned in this country. There's been no mention how the exception would play out & that should be scary to every woman in this entire country who doesn't believe in Pro-Life in all instances. Democrats are stupid for not attacking Republicans on this & spelling it out for moderate/liberals/non-crazy conservatives.

It would be the biggest Government expansion into people's bedrooms since prior to Roe v. Wade, the biggest "infringement" on personal freedom since the Patriot act, & the worst bureaucratic mess since the DMV. I think Obama can win on this issue alone, if he can present the argument right.

Edit:

I guess Obama did mention some of this, but did it on Leno. That isn't something any sane person watches, so 'Bama we still need him to phrase this argument right.

Edited, Oct 25th 2012 11:10am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#46 Oct 25 2012 at 9:09 AM Rating: Decent
******
43,650 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
The fact is, if Romney is elected, Abortions would be banned in this country.
Highly unlikely, and worse case scenario it becomes the new Prohibition and make a return soon afterwards.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#47 Oct 25 2012 at 9:12 AM Rating: Excellent
lolgaxe wrote:
Highly unlikely, and worse case scenario it becomes the new Prohibition and make a return soon afterwards.


If it was highly unlikely any Supreme Court justices would retire in the next four years, I might be inclined to believe you.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#48 Oct 25 2012 at 9:14 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Eske wrote:
And as previously mentioned, I don't think that his assertion is demeaning, as it's in line with a widely-accepted belief system.


This is your brand of logic, is it?

Well, I think I'm gonna pass.


It's awkwardly phrased, but I'm basing the assertion on the transitive property, there. A = B, and B = not demeaning, therefore A = not demeaning. The logic is sound, but you're free to debate its applicability.

Also, go fuck yourself.


Sure, if I accept your unspeakably stupid assumption that widely-accepted belief systems cannot be demeaning it makes perfect sense.

I'm not going to be doing that, though.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#49 Oct 25 2012 at 9:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
What the Rabbi said...

Quote:
“If you believe she has no right to terminate that pregnancy, you're free to believe that,” Kushner said. “But for you to write your preferences into law and compel another person to mess her life up because of what you believe, I think you're going too far.”

“I continue to be bemused by the ultraconservative lawmakers who say they want smaller government and less government intrusion into people’s lives, except when it comes to who you can marry and how many children you should have.”
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#50 Oct 25 2012 at 9:43 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Eske wrote:
And as previously mentioned, I don't think that his assertion is demeaning, as it's in line with a widely-accepted belief system.


This is your brand of logic, is it?

Well, I think I'm gonna pass.


It's awkwardly phrased, but I'm basing the assertion on the transitive property, there. A = B, and B = not demeaning, therefore A = not demeaning. The logic is sound, but you're free to debate its applicability.

Also, go fuck yourself.


Sure, if I accept your unspeakably stupid assumption that widely-accepted belief systems cannot be demeaning it makes perfect sense.

I'm not going to be doing that, though.


Alas, that's not the point I was trying to make.

I'd apologize for any unclarity, and try to rephrase things to better elucidate my meaning, but you're being an insufferable brat about it. So go reread my other posts and try to suss out what I was actually driving at, if you'd like.

If not, then buzz off. I'm not in the mood for your 'edgy' brand of snark today.

Edited, Oct 25th 2012 11:45am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#51 Oct 25 2012 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
If not, then buzz off. I'm not in the mood for your 'edgy' brand of snark today.


That's not really how I see myself but okay.

Anyway, in that case, I haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about. I've parsed the literal meaning of your words, I'm not sure what else you want from me.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 42 All times are in CDT
Aripyanfar, r1ng0sc4rr, stupidmonkey, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (38)