Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

GOP candidate: "God Intended" Pregnancies from RapeFollow

#27 Oct 24 2012 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 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: Retired December 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 and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#28 Oct 24 2012 at 2:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,388 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.
#29 Oct 24 2012 at 3:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 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
******
34,982 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
*****
13,405 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
******
21,262 posts
"Mary was essentially raped."
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 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 and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#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
*****
13,405 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
******
34,982 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
*****
13,405 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
******
34,982 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
*****
13,405 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
******
34,982 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
****
6,471 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.
#42 Oct 25 2012 at 7:00 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 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
*****
13,405 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 crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#46 Oct 25 2012 at 9:09 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,831 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 crap 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
*****
13,405 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
****
6,471 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
#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.”
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 2 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (2)