Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Guy Benson :: Townhall.com Columnist
Obama's Stem Cell Disgrace
by Guy Benson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


With a great deal of fanfare, President Obama signed an executive order on stem cell research last week. The most controversial element of his new directive is a short, harmless-looking clause that you probably haven’t heard about. People on all sides of the stem cell controversy should call this particular decision what it is: A disgrace.

Last August—back when President Obama was still just Senator Obama—I wrote a column with a very similar title to this one, detailing a series of indefensible votes Obama cast as an Illinois state senator. At issue was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, a piece of legislation designed to affirm the full human rights of babies who managed to survive abortions. In short, Obama voted repeatedly against the provision, and then offered a string of evolving, profoundly dishonest excuses for those votes. This episode worried pro-lifers, many of whom correctly concluded that despite his conciliatory rhetoric and overtures to voters on both sides of the issue, Obama would actually govern as the most pro-abortion president in history. They were right.

When Obama reversed the Bush-era policy on embryonic stem cell research funding on Monday, he was flanked by a bevy of smiling activists and legislators who burst into applause when he attached his signature to the order. Like many Americans, the group assembled at the White House seemed to genuinely believe Obama’s act would open research avenues that could help find a cure to devastating diseases. Who can blame them? For years, Democrats portrayed the previous policy as a triumph of narrow-minded religious dogma imposed by zealots who would rather see human suffering continue than surrender an inch on ideology.

Of course, the reality was much more complicated. President Bush’s 2001 executive order did not “ban” embryonic stem cell research, as much of the public believes. He simply ensured that the privately funded destruction of new human embryos—nascent human life—would not be encouraged by the promise of taxpayer dollars for future research. In other words, embryonic stem cell research could continue, but the government stopped short of providing cash incentives for an unproven practice that many taxpayers believed to be morally abhorrent. Obama’s order ends that paradigm. Now researchers who engage in this specific form of stem cell research will be handsomely rewarded with federal funds. (Direct taxpayer funding of embryo destruction is explicitly banned by the 1995 Dickey Amendment, so the new policy allows the government to subsidize the practice while outsourcing the dirty work to private entities).

Perhaps you agree with this new policy. Most Americans, including some who are generally anti-abortion, believe embryonic stem cell research represents a gray area with a lot of potential scientific upside. Many are also willing to allow some tax dollars to further research in this vein. It’s a complicated, difficult issue on which reasonable people can express honest disagreements.

Obama, as he is inclined to do, tried to have it both ways at the signing ceremony. He first acknowledged that, “Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. And I understand their views, and I believe we must respect their point of view.”

Mere seconds later, he assailed the previous administration for crafting policy that, well, understood and truly respected the views of those aforementioned “thoughtful and decent” people. Obama congratulated his administration for having the sophistication to ensure that scientific decisions are “based on facts, not ideology.” Remember that phrase.

Obama’s “uniter” persona also assured Americans that he’d continue to support “promising research of all kinds, including groundbreaking research to convert ordinary human cells into ones that resemble embryonic stem cells.” This research has proven extraordinarily promising, especially after a dramatic breakthrough in 2007: Scientists in Japan and the US discovered they could engineer human skin cells to mimic embryonic stem cell. This could allow the scientific community to probe the benefits of these cells without actually destroying human embryos. To some, this development rendered the controversy moot, and vindicated President Bush’s moral and ethical caution. At the very least, it was an enormous scientific step forward that all observers could unabashedly celebrate.

For this reason, the previous administration—you know, the divisive ideologues who hated science—issued executive order 13435 in 2007 that directed federal funding toward alternative, non-controversial human pluripotent stem cell research. Although some critics argued this action didn’t go far enough, and that further embryonic stem cell research should also be funded, no one could legitimately oppose the funding of this universally welcomed breakthrough.

That brings us to the nasty, gratuitous, and nearly entirely unpublicized action President Obama took amidst the hoopla of overturning Bush’s policies. Right after he told the country he supported for alternative, non-destructive stem cell research, Obama signed the actual order. Buried at the very bottom of the document was this line: “Executive Order 13435…is revoked.” That’s right, he abolished President Bush’s funding for the type of stem cell research upon which everyone could agree. Just like that.

In my August 2008 column, I speculated as to why then-State Senator Obama had repeatedly opposed no-brainer, pro-life legislation that passed the US Congress without a single dissenting vote. I wrote, “[One] possibility is that Obama’s a hyper-partisan ideologue. The driving forces behind the Born Alive Infant Protection Act were pro-life groups that generally support Republicans. Perhaps Obama’s fierce partisanship and leftist ideology were simply too strong for him to stomach handing any conservative group a political victory. If this is the case, his vote was petty and appallingly callous. It also would entirely undermine the overarching message of his famous 2004 DNC speech in which he decried blue vs. red state polarization and embraced America in with a big, royal purple hug of bipartisanship and inclusion.”

In the face of yet another grotesque Obama policy decision on the issue of life, famed bioethicist Wesley J. Smith pondered a similar question. On his blog, he wondered why on earth Obama would take the totally unnecessary action he did in undoing excutive order 13435. Smith’s conclusion: “I can think of only two reasons for this action…First, vindictiveness against all things "Bush" or policies considered by the Left to be "pro life;" and second, a desire to get the public to see unborn human life as a mere corn crop ripe for the harvest. So much for taking the politics out of science.”

This decision by the president is hypocritical in the extreme, and demonstrates that Obama’s language about respect, inclusion, and unity are, in fact, just words. Regardless of one’s feelings on the separate issue of embryonic stem cell research, this narrow element of his executive order is an outrage, and “thoughtful and decent” people of all ideological backgrounds should urge the White House to follow the president’s own rhetoric by rejecting the imposition of leftist ideology at the expense good science.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Guy Benson is the host of The Guy Benson Show on 560 WIND-AM in Chicago.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
to NTLB
"Obama and the Unborn
When President Obama was running, he stated something to the effect that if one of his daughters made a mistake, he didn't want her punished with a baby. I have thought long and hard about what he really meant by this. Does he think of himself as the product of a mistake? Does he see himself as a punishment visited on his mother for her "sins"? Does he consider himself and others like him, born out of wedlock as punishments, as something evil? This could be an explanation of his attitude, his seeming hatred for the unborn".

It's important to evaluate his comment in context. He was supporting sex ed to prevent teen-age pregnancy, so kids realize the possibility of pregnancy and if not abstinent don't find themselves in a difficult situation, in fact punished with not knowing. The comment had nothing to do with abortion or babies being a punishment. 1 I think we can all agree children having children is not a good thing.
For all we know, Obama's mother, while young and unmarried, wanted to get pregnant, which is totally different. He doesn't hate the unborn, says he is personaaly not for abortion.

1
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12231

Obama and the Unborn
When President Obama was running, he stated something to the effect that if one of his daughters made a mistake, he didn't want her punished with a baby. I have thought long and hard about what he really meant by this. Does he think of himself as the product of a mistake? Does he see himself as a punishment visited on his mother for her "sins"? Does he consider himself and others like him, born out of wedlock as punishments, as something evil? This could be an explanation of his attitude, his seeming hatred for the unborn.

Clues
Lonny Location: PA writes
"Vicki
You are truly, truly clueless."

One of us sure is. I am reasonably certain that other readers know which one. For you I leave a cluebyfour. Filibuster.


Vicki
You are truly, truly clueless.

Don't Like To Defend Barry,
...but revoking 13435 was only to eliminate redundancy. Obama's Exec Order provides for the same things as 13435 did, only with the murderous embryonic stem cell addition.

Another point or two:

The viability angle is cheap and subjective. Whether an embryo can exist on its own outside the womb is irrelevant to its inherent humanity. It is a stage we all went through. How many three year olds can exist for long on their own? Each stage of human development requires different degrees of support.

Keep in mind that there has never been any law prohibiting the continued research on embryonic stem cells. Bush merely allowed that my tax money wouldn't go to fund it. God bless him for that.

There's something seriously wrong with our society that so many think nothing of human experimentation that they'll use the cheapest and most lame arguments to support it. We are capable of better. We damned well better be.

There's also something seriously wrong with a society that so many believe the experience of child birth is a right that allows for the risk of destroying another human being, or multiples of them, in order to enjoy that experience. This means that I disapprove of in vitro fertilization and believe it should be stopped. If one can't conceive, tough beans. It took me and the missus five years and we had already gotten to the point of believing it wasn't to be. Risking the lives of a number of children to have one didn't seem the mature and Christian thing to do.

Education. Who needs it?
Lonny Location: PA writes:
"Vicki
you are not particularly well educated, are you?"

Though I may not be as well educated as the smartest woman on the planet (H.Clinton) I do have sufficient education to avoid such obviously stupid statements as
"when a legislature passes a law, it does so by majority vote."



Lonny - "When there are 30 Dems and 20 Reps in state legislature, they vote one representative one vote. 30 beats 20. Majority rule. Same as voters on Prop 8, majority vote."

Very good. You have at least a vague understanding of how Majority rule works. It is unfortunately incomplete

Lonny - "Representative democracy doesn't mean anything once the election is over. Then they vote per representative."

Which is why I for one am glad that we do not live in a representitive democracy.

Lonny - "Please go back to school."

I would offer that you should follow your own advice. I would suggest Private schooling as public schooling seems woefully inadequate to the task.

Vicki
you are not particularly well educated, are you?

When there are 30 Dems and 20 Reps in state legislature, they vote one representative one vote. 30 beats 20. Majority rule. Same as voters on Prop 8, majority vote.

Representative democracy doesn't mean anything once the election is over. Then they vote per representative. Please go back to school.

Legislative confusion.
Lonny Location: PA writes:
"when a legislature passes a law, it does so by majority vote."

Incorrect.

Whatever the manner in which the representatives are elected, they pass laws by majority.

Incorrect.

I suppose you think that when a legislature is 80/20 GOP, that the state is actually 80/20 Dem?

No.


Generally speaking, the legislatures are apportioned according to the voting interests in each state, and in Congress and Senate as well.

Don't know what you are saying so will presume you are correct.

Prop. 8 in California was passed by a majority of voters, having nothing to do with the allocation in the legislature there.

Correct and a good example of why a constitutionally LIMITED government is preferable over a democracy. Democracy stomps on the rights of minorities without restraint.

Think 2 wolves and a chicken voting on dinner. Majority rule. Dinner is served.

Vicki
when a legislature passes a law, it does so by majority vote. Whatever the manner in which the representatives are elected, they pass laws by majority. I suppose you think that when a legislature is 80/20 GOP, that the state is actually 80/20 Dem? Generally speaking, the legislatures are apportioned according to the voting interests in each state, and in Congress and Senate as well. Prop. 8 in California was passed by a majority of voters, having nothing to do with the allocation in the legislature there.

So, my statement about the SCOTUS is completely true. If anti-choice people wish to ban abortions or ESC research, as they seek to ban gay marriages, they can do so by passing laws that are immune from Constitutional attack. In most instances, a Constitutional amendment will do that. If you wish to make the unborn a separate protected class and ban abortions and ESC research, marshall your assets and work to pass a constitutional amendment. It won't happen because you cannot even get a majority to require parental consent in many states even when you get a majority to choose to ban gay marriage. My conclusion from the vote in CA in 11/08 when they voted to ban gay marriage but not to require parental consent is that religious types hate and fear gay people more than they worry about the unborn(and frankly, they want to leave the option open for an abortion).

Ugly people do an ugly thing.
I saw the picture of the people around Obama when he signed the bill. It was like a poster for abortion. An uglier group probably couldn't be found. Oh yeah and then there is the matter of their appearance.

Stem Cell Research
It is outrageous that Obama and other liberals insist it is necessary to kill unborn babies AND those poor little helpless babies who survive abortion. I cannot comprehend this liberal view. There are stem cells from one's own body, stem cells from the cord and stem cells from the fluid in the womb. I believe it was in 1973 that scientists declared life begins at conception. If babies are not alive until born, then how can it be that babies have died in the womb? Why do unborn babies kick? Why was it once considered a good idea to play music and to read to one's unborn baby?

confused
Lonny Location: PA
"The SCOTUS only gets involved when a law is passed (by definition by a majority)"

By definition? We live in a Republic not a democracy.

Lonny
Stem Cell research, both fetal and otherwise, was never banned. We simply did not use US tax dollars to fund it. But individuals could fund it as much as they liked and private organizations could do the research.

Funny, but when Obama took office he gave a sweet little speech about trying to reach out to those of us who did not vote for him. Thus far, he has ignored anything we have to say, proving that he really only cares about his core voters.

That said, I understand that he absolutely has the athority to do this. He is a president with majority congressional support. In other words, our protestations really do not mean much. And that is ok, to a point. But eventually even this president will discover that results are what matters in the end. If in 4 years, things have gotten worse, will he still have your vote?

PJ O'Rourke, On Cancer & Stem Cells
PJ O’Rourke is dealing with cancer, right now, so if he wanted to, he could defend the president’s recent executive order promoting (with his typical strawmen and ungenerously snide references to his predecessor) the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. He could wail and weep “poor me, I might need this research. I might get healed with it, and since the world is all about me, me, me, we should take this big moral jump and try! For me!”

O’ Rourke could ignore the fact that embryonic stem cell research (which did go on during the Bush years, despite the false narrative that is never corrected) has thus far yielded no effective therapies (but plenty of nightmares, despite the false narrative that is never corrected).

He could ignore the fact that if anything good was coming out of Embryonic stem cell research private capital would have been fighting all along (as they were perfectly, legally, able to do these past 8 years) to invest in the game instead of avoiding it like plague, while calling the president “heroic” (as the WH did) for “flicking his wrist” and creating a law.
He could do that, and immediately some “compassionate” sorts would jump on the opportunity to cry for him and bolster their case against lives less obvious.

But to his immense credit, O’ Rourke goes in the other direction and chooses to engage in some intellectual honesty. Brutally.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/16/pj-orourke-slams-obam a-on-stem-cell-reasoning/

Robert...last point before the evening


Why aren't sadists or polygamists protected classes? Beats me, they just are not. If you think they should be, then go for it, but right now, we are not talking about people who are not in protected classes, we are talking about people who are. And those who are in protected classes cannot be discriminated against without a compelling reason.
"Do you truly think that this will stop with homosexual marriage?" Haven't wasted two seconds of my time worried about that. Until dogs, or polygamists, etc, can demonstrate that the state's basis for denying them the right to marry is not rational, that's all the state need prove. Until they are in a protected class, that's the level of scrutiny, so if the polygamists want to make that effort, they can spend their time and money. It won't hurt your marriage any more than millions of divorces each year do. When I asked my son why he and his longtime girlfriend haven't married yet, he said that he's afraid that they will end up divorced like her parents and his grandparents, with all the vitriol. Now, that's nonsense in my mind, but heck, he didn't blame his delay on the fact that CA allowed gay marriage last year.

Hebrew law counts because you said man and women getting married is the only thing that has ever been the norm. That just isn't true.

As for what this has to do with stem cell, it has to do with majority votes trying to stop stem cell research. The majority voted for Obama, and he's approved stem cell.

Robert
Because, under NJ law, if you rent to one, you rent to all. Public accomodation. That is the way it is. You can choose not to rent to anyone. It was a for profit location, not a church location, just like a restaurant. Do you believe that restaurants can refuse to serve people on the basis of their gender,
race, orientation? So, yes, if you own a bowling alley, for example, you cannot tell a gay bowling league they cannot bowl there. I'm sorry, but that's the law in most states. Again, do you think that a restaurant can deny service on the basis of race, gender, orientation? Did you object to laws that required businesses to serve to black clients?

Lonny
" It could not, under NJ state accomodation laws, refuse to rent the space to a gay couple" So you are saying that a church should be compelled to rent its facility to a gay couple for a ceremony that is contrary to church law. That's pretty much a totalitarian statement. You would compel the majority of the people of the United States who are clearly against homosexual marriage by every vote taken to lend their talents, their properties, and their consciences to rigid conformity to a right that never existed in the Constitution.

Homosexuals a protected class? Why not sadists? Why not polygamists? There's a whole two towns in my state that are already planning a legal challenge of the polygamy statutes. Do you truly think that this will stop with homosexual marriage? You say, " A state can clearly state a rational basis for denying you the 'right' to marry your mother, sibling or dog." I have a rational basis to be opposed to new definitions of marriage that are diametrically opposed to historical reality and the ethical decision of the majority

And why on earth do you think Hebrew law has anything to do with it?

By the way, whatever does any of this have to do with stem cell research?

Robert,Robert,Robert
"Easy-- marriage is and always has been between a man and a woman. That's now just how the churches define it-- it's how all the history of Western civilization defines it. It is self evident."

Really? http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehist ory.htm
So, you think that we should follow Hebrew law and force a man to marry his brother's widow? Ah, but that's a man and a woman, right? Oh, that's your point. What utter nonsense.

Polygamy wasn't even illegal until 1862. As for that ridiculous argument about polygamy, bigamy, marrying your mom, dog, etc, when those persons or things are determined to be a protected class that is being denied equal rights under the constitution, as is being done with gay Americans, then you should worry. But for now, don't. When you deny a protected class (gay and lesbian people) constitutional rights, you have to pass the fundamental state interest test. With all others, only a rational basis test. A state can clearly state a rational basis for denying you the 'right' to marry your mother, sibling or dog. Not the same of someone to whom you are not related who happens to also be of a protected class.

You are being misled. The 'religious organization' that wouldn't rent to gays got in trouble because it had a secular site it was renting out, not its church facility. It could not, under NJ state accomodation laws, refuse to rent the space to a gay couple. Would you be ok if they refused to rent the space to a Black couple?

My suggestions about the laws we should impose if we are seriously concerned about the sanctity of marriage for our society and for our children are not facetious at all. If you truly believe in the sanctity of marriage, you would be first in line to sign a petition banning divorce. Why not ban divorce? It hurts children immensely.

Totalitarian Homophilia
"You have yet to state one legitimate reason to be against gay marriage. This is why I say that those who are against gay marriage are haters and fearful. If not, then tell me why you don't seek the remedies I suggested. " Easy-- marriage is and always has been between a man and a woman. That's now just how the churches define it-- it's how all the history of Western civilization defines it. It is self evident.

If this is not so, why not polygamy or polygyny? Why not marry your mother, father, sister, brother, or your pet collie? I truly love my pet collie. And if you are against our marriage, you hate dogs. Even better, why not all of the above at the same time? Absurd statement? Of course it is. But if marriage is not what it is and always has been, why not allow in all the absurd exceptions above? The primary purpose of marriage is to maintain the institution of the family, which at some point includes a man and a woman-- otherwise, no family.

You may ask what difference recognizing gay marriage has on the average person. Small businesses and religious institutions are already being sued for refusing to provide services of one sort or another to homosexual couples. Photographers who won't do gay weddings, religious groups that won't lease meeting space to gay unions are all targeted with expensive lawsuits. Accusations of hate are used to intimidate those who simply want the current universally historically definition to stand.

The reason your facetious totalitarian remedies for marriage are not acceptable to the average American is that we are not totalitarian. You are.

90% of blacks voted for Kerry
because he was black?

Robert II
If you think that the current SCOTUS will undermine abortion rights, I think you misread Justice Kennedy. He will not stand for the undoing of Roe.

I don't advocate tyrannical laws. I simply want you folks who are against gay marriage because of some made up 'universal definition of marriage' to be intellectually honest. If the universal definition of marriage, inclusive of being able to procreate and all taht, is upheld, then we must impose requirements like banning divorce, etc. Why should elderly people be allowed to marry? What does their marriage add to our culture? Surely, any stable pairing of people, no matter their orientation, is preferable to living alone.

It is about the hate and fear, admit it. If an impotent 80 year old man and an 80 year old woman with a hysterectomy wish to marry, you're fine with that, but if two impotent 80 year old men wish to marry, you are not ok with it. 80 year old people did not get married in 1700 because they had died a long time before that.

Before about 1970, many states allowed divorce only under certain circumstances. That got changed too.

Robert
I haven't accused you of any crime. You have yet to state one legitimate reason to be against gay marriage. This is why I say that those who are against gay marriage are haters and fearful. If not, then tell me why you don't seek the remedies I suggested.

If you truly believe that gay marriage undermines the so-called sanctity of marriage, then you should favor laws that ban divorce. Divorce has undermined that sanctity far more than any two same-orientation people getting married ever could. The same is true about adultery--yet not one proponent of gay marriage bans argues for making adultery illegal and punishable as a crime. I'm not advocating either that divorce be banned, or that adultery be a crime--far from it. But if you are the one claiming that gay marriage undermines straight marriage, then you have to admit that divorce and adultery are much more immediate and pervasive attacks on the sanctity
of straight marriage. There were far more divorces last year than the number of gay marriages could ever have occurred.


Robert AZ
Blacks didnt vote for OBAMA because of his stance on Abortions, hell most blacks hate abortions also, they voted for him for one reason and one reason only


HE WAS A BLACK MAN, GET IT IN YOUR THICK SKULLS

Enough said

Who Are the Haters?
"Stating a fact isn't name calling. People against gay marriage hate AND fear gay people. " You are entitled to your own opinion-- you are not entitled to your own facts. With the exception of a tiny, tiny minority (think Westboro Baptist Church0, those opposed to redefining marriage are not haters. I know them, I've discussed the matter with them, and what you believe simply is not true. It is a delusion, and I am sorry you are afflicted by it.

We do not have the same SCOTUS we did when the last abortion law was brought before them. The chances are good that the current court will allow State restrictions on abortion. If so, be prepared for a flood of new laws restricting abortion. The tide is not running in the direction of more approval of abortion, but less.

Apparently, you have never met a tyrannical law you didn't like. You tell us that people in favor of maintaining the historical and universal definition of marriage must enact a series of totalitarian laws demanding that they have children, put adulterers in jail, and so on. No, we don't. This is an absurd argument, on par with believing we want homosexuals stoned or otherwise seriously inconvenienced. Another delusion.

Your chief tactic is to accuse the other side of all manner of absurd, immoral, and totalitarian crimes they are not guilty of. Not only is this wrong, it doesn't work.

I'm bored with being called a hater and accused of absurd crimes. Unless you have something substantive and rational to say, don't bother to post. Or, keep it up and look foolish.

hey
what about that nine year old Rape victim in Brazil. You still think she should have been forced to have those babies?

Robert
The SCOTUS only gets involved when a law is passed (by definition by a majority) or a court decision is proffered to the SCOTUS. In each instance, the SCOTUS must determine if it violates the US Constitution or not. If you want to avoid having the SCOTUS determine if laws you pass are constitutional, pass a constitutional amendment protecting the unborn and making abortion illegal. Until then, it isn't a matter of majority, it is a matter of passing a Constitutional Amendment. A daunting task, to be sure. But you folks don't even try, because you'd rather rail against the Court for doing its job of determining what is Constitutional and what isn't. It isn't a moral issue, it is a constitutional issue.

Yes, people who are against gay marriage are haters. If they are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage and the importance of marriage for children, they must do other things that wold be more helpful to marriage...ban divorce, make adultery illegal and punishable in prison, make having children mandatory within a set time period, perhaps even requiring fertility tests before granting marriage licenses. The only marriages harmed by allowing gays to marriage are those where one of the heterosexual married people are actually gay, and who dissolve their sham marriage to marry someone of the same sexual orientation. Outside undoing fraudulent marriages, the gay marriages that have taken place have done nothing to any of us in heterosexual marriages.

Stating a fact isn't name calling. People against gay marriage hate AND fear gay people.

Black Power
""BLACKS have a name for it. (abortion)

It's called BLACK GENOCIDE."

Yet they voted overwhelmingly for the most pro-abortion president in history.

Wasn't that vote a little . . . well, racist?

I think the whites who voted for Obama should be charged with BLACK GENOCIDE. Does Bill agree?

ABORTION VS. ADOPTION
Bill Location: IL
Reply # 240
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 4:42 PM EST

"BLACKS have a name for it. (abortion)

It's called BLACK GENOCIDE."

And the Countries first president with a REALLY GOOD suntan signs a law to make it even more economically viable to abort the children. Ironic that.

Lonny
Sorry to have misspelled your name. However, your accusation that pro-life people want abortion legal for their own children is still indefensible and not supported by anything except your personal hatred of us.

Voting for or against gay marriage or abortion restrictions doesn't define whether they are right or not, only if they are legal. You won't deal with the problem that ALL restrictions on abortion have been rejected by SCOTUS. The court decided in your favor, so they are the voice of wisdom. I want the people to vote on whether they allow and finance abortion-- you don't. That's antidemocratic.

Every state that has voted on gay marriage has voted against, even liberal California. When you call these voters haters, do you truly mean that most people in this country are motivated by just hate, and that there are no legitimate reason for keeping marriage as a covenant between man and woman? Then you have nothing to say to them, and your attitude and name-calling will convince nobody.




Robert
do you misspell people's names on purpose? My name isn't Lonnie, it is Lonny.

Most people want to stop abortions for other people and other people's kids. Their own...well, just as in the day when they sent girls away to have babies, and then called the resulting infant their 'sister' or 'brother', most anti-abortion types do not want to actually make abortion illegal. Just not available to someone else. Look at the last election in California. A 'majority' chose to ban gay marriage, yet that same group refused to impose a parental notification provision. Surely you are not arguing that the 'majority' was so sophisticated that they voted to ban gay marriage but said, 'wait, can't vote for parental notification because SCOTUS will overturn it." Not hardly likely.

And you admit you do not have the votes for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. I like the use of the word 'yet', because the movement is growing more popular, right, after almost 40 years of abortion choice? LOL. We don't amend the Constitution by majority vote. We do it by Constitutional amendment. If the preborn are so important to you, rally your troops, pass that Amendment! You won't get 40% of the vote for such a thing, let alone 2/3.
Of course you fear the voters...they can vote based on hate (gay rights), but not on alleged love (anti-abortion.).

ABORTION VS. ADOPTION
I don't know how this discussion waffled into comments about abortion, but as long as it has I would like to know how many Republicans would be willing to adopt a BLACK baby?"

Don't all shout at once.

You see the truth of the matter is the anti-abortion "gang" never demonstrates around an abortion clinic in the BLACK community because the anti-abortion gang want the BLACK women to abort their babies.

BLACKS have a name for it.

It's called BLACK GENOCIDE.

lonnie
"Most people who give lip service to being against abortion also do not want to lose the option for their kids to use should they get pregnant or have a deformed child in utero." Total nonsense. Think Sarah Palin. This numb ad hominum argument reveals a vicious and foolish mind.

Also, you immediately bring up a Constitutional Amendment. Of course we don't have the votes for that---yet. We do have the votes to limit abortion severely, and have passed laws limiting abortion in many states which have been overturned by SCOTUS.

You fear the democratic choice of the people. We don't.

I was thinking in terms of things
like Prop 8 in California, where the touted 'majority' denied gay people equal rights. We've been told that the majority opposes gay marriage, so gay people must live with that decision of the majority. Same is true for those of you who cannot muster a majority to pass a constitutional amendment which would of course deny the SCOTUS the right to declare the anti-abortion law unconstitutional, right?

You believe in property rights conferring voting rights, that's where you are?

apparent illogic
Lonny Location: PA writes:
"glad to hear you are against democracy,..."

Welcome. I am for a Constitutionally Limited Republic. Which we had years ago but no more :(

Lonny - "Good to know that those on the right favor democracy so long as they can run our lives, never in any other instance."

This appears to be a conclusion on your part based on a single individual whom you say is the most evil you have ever met. Why would you stereotype all of the folk on the right based on this individual (me)?

Now as to me if I wanted to run your life I would be in favor of a dictatorship with me as the dictator.

Robert...
"We'll take our chances at the ballot box. Of course, we aren't allowed to use the ballot and the law to limit or ban abortions. Every single limitation or ban voted for by the people and the legislatures for the last thirty-five years has been overruled by the Supreme Court. We're pro-choice on having a choice to have the will of the people be the law. The pro-abortion forces are not."

Pass a constitutional amendment. Federal. You don't have the votes. Most people who give lip service to being against abortion also do not want to lose the option for their kids to use should they get pregnant or have a deformed child in utero.

Remember...pork in the federal budget is an expenditure in someone else's district. In yours, it is a necessary project. So, when your daughter get impregnated by a drug dealer's son, she can go to planned parenthood and never tell you, and you can just go along like teaching her that abstinence alone is just fine.

Democracy Now
lonni says, " . . .You cannot prevail at the ballot box, but you keep on...." What a spectacularly dishonest argument.

We'll take our chances at the ballot box. Of course, we aren't allowed to use the ballot and the law to limit or ban abortions. Every single limitation or ban voted for by the people and the legislatures for the last thirty-five years has been overruled by the Supreme Court. We're pro-choice on having a choice to have the will of the people be the law. The pro-abortion forces are not.

As for pro-life people supporting the killing of abortion providers, I know of none who do so. Right now, the murder score stands at 50,000,000 pro abortion, 5 (or so) anti-abortion. The difference is, the pro-life side condemns both.

Vicky
glad to hear you are against democracy, and in favor of creating embryos outside the mother's womb and letting them either be implanted in surrogates or in some kind of star chamber that would simulate a woman's womb. Because if you think that an IVF embryo is 'viable' on its own, you are seriously mistaken.

Good to know that those on the right favor democracy so long as they can run our lives, never in any other instance.

Seriously...
like some of you conservatives really cares what happens to babies after they are born in this country anyway.

Democracy
Lonny writes:
"What you pro life people refuse to comprehend is this--you don't have the votes to prevail to ban abortion."

This is probably the best arguement against democracy since the 2 wolves and a lamb sound byte.

Thanks Lonny.

Viable
Lonny Location: PA writes
"I'm in my 50's
and I'll freely admit an embryo is a human being. It certainly isn't a cow."

We are in agreement.

Lonny - "But it isn't viable."

hmmmm....
----------------------------------------
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/viable

1: capable of living ; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb (a viable fetus)

2: capable of growing or developing (viable seeds) (viable eggs)

3 a: capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately (viable alternatives)
b: capable of existence and development as an independent unit (the colony is now a viable state)
c (1): having a reasonable chance of succeeding (a viable candidate)
(2): financially sustainable (a viable enterprise)
---------------------------------------------------

In most discussions about viable and abortions the definition 1 is most likely used.

I assert that in vitro fertilization shows that a human is viable from conception.

I further assert that surrogate motherhood (gestational surrogacy) shows that a human is viable from conception as the human grows outside the mothers womb (in another human womb)

I further assert that definition 2 shows that human embryos are viable from conception. Proof in that they DO grow, hence viable.

I further assert that definitions 3a shows that human embryos are viable from conception. Proof in their growth.

Now for amusement let us observe the opposite end of this spectrum. Those who advocate "viable" as only "having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb" I would ask. How long must the child survive to be considered viable?

Under what conditions outside the mothers womb are acceptable for this analysis? (See gestational surrogacy)

Lonny
"Neither pro choice nor pro life groups will willingly give up their political power by actually having a meeting of the minds. "

Well said. I am certainly pro-choice but do not support late term abortions.

But as we see, both sides are digging in to protect their political positions. And late term abortions are a perfect example, don't give an inch! And on the right, it is murder and never compromise.




Choice. Whos?
Mod Mark Location: NY writes:
"And most on the pro choice side are anti-abortion but you choose not to see."

Proof by bald assertion. It is hard to see what is not offered as evidence.

Mod Mark - "It is just a matter of what tactic should be used to prevent abortions."

What tactic do you propose?

I propose Abstinence, Contraception, Adoption, Education. I have practiced all 4.

I'm in my 50's
and I'll freely admit an embryo is a human being. It certainly isn't a cow. But it isn't viable. My wife and I got pregnant twice and never had to consider an abortion. Had she been raped, or had we learned that our children would be born with horrific birth defects, we would have had an abortion, provided we followed the edicts of the law.

What you pro life people refuse to comprehend is this--you don't have the votes to prevail to ban abortion. If you did, you'd go that route. Join groups that work to help young men and women use more effective birth control instead of insisting on abstinence education only. Join groups that work to help the poor rather than complaining that the stimulus bill will help those who are lazy. When you take consistent actions, perhaps others of us, who do not believe in abortion as a means of birth control, would join your efforts. So long as you want to make abortion 'murder' instead of what it is, a legal action, you will never prevail. Your goals will never be met, unless of course, your goal is political power. Neither pro choice nor pro life groups will willingly give up their political power by actually having a meeting of the minds.

Abortion is murder
Once upon a time I thought that getting an abortion would be more convienent for my life. The father was not a good choice, even though I married him. I wasn't making very much money at the time, so it was easy to buy in on the rethoric of "it's my life, my choice".
I was haunted by my actions for years untill I confessed and cryed my heart out to the lord for that little baby I didn't care for. I realized 100% that I had committed a murder of the most innocent. I had killed a child that would never talk for itself. I do believe that God has forgiven me and I was blessed with another beautiful child. The circumstances of this pregnancy were the same; still not making very much money, bad husband now in jail. I knew in my heart that no matter what the hardship would be I had to bare this child of God's love. It was not an easy chore to raise this child on my own but it was the only choice to make.
The people of my generation (I was born in the 50's) will never admit that an embryo is a living thing because then they will have to admint that they are murderers and conspiritors to murder also. They are the ones who tell thier daughters to abort, so that thier lives are not ruined. How many fathers & mothers, boyfriends & girlfriends, brothers & sisters counseled thier loved ones to terminate the pregnancy? They all have to understand what they did was to conspire to commit murder. Untill this county takes a look at what we all have done through our ignorance or indifference we will not heal. Abortion needs to be illegal with very few exceptions. My heart will never stop breaking for the child I decided I would kill.

Vicky
"We are Pro Choice but you choose not to see."

And most on the pro choice side are anti-abortion but you choose not to see.

It is just a matter of what tactic should be used to prevent abortions.


Answers
Lonny Location: PA writes:
"Vicky
you don't answer questions, do you?"

You want answers to questions from the most evil person you have ever met? Why?

Choice. Whos?
Lonny Location: PA writes:
"btw, do you anti choice folks advocate killing abortion doctors?"

We advocate NOT killing the innocent.
We are Pro Choice but you choose not to see.

Vicky
you don't answer questions, do you?

You have no answers, just your 'faith'. Sad.

If you got cancer, would you go to a doctor?

Shocking
smartest guy in the room Location: IL writes:
"I'm just shocked sometimes at the blantant disregard and pure ignorance in regards to certain elements of the Conservative base and science."


I'm just shocked sometimes at the blatant disregard and pure ignorance in regards to certain elements of the Liberal base and politics.

From the Time article

" In truth, abortions and unwanted pregnancies are a sad constant in Brazil. Although abortion is illegal, an estimated 1 million women each year have one. The poor are forced into clandestine clinics or take medication, while the better-off are treated by qualified physicians at well-appointed surgeries known to anyone with money and overlooked by colluding authorities.

That secrecy has a price. More than 200,000 women each year are treated in public hospitals for complications arising from illegal abortions, according to Health Ministry figures."

i don't get it
the 2007 bush bill was a supplement to his 2001 statement on embyonic stem cells.

all obama did was say "mine now replaces his"

he doesn't say work can't be done on adult stems, he is simply saying there are now no restrictions on embronic.

this author was just looking for something to be outraged about.

every president overturns some policies of his predecessor but to turn this into a conspiracy is absurd.

this is a tempest in a teapot.


Sure sounds like a witch hunt to me
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-kansas -abortion-trial15-2009mar15,0,4784156.story

btw, do you anti choice folks advocate killing abortion doctors? That's what some in Kansas tried to do with Dr. Tiller. Evil, you anti choice types are evil. You cannot prevail at the ballot box, but you keep on.

Sure sounds like a witch hunt to me
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-kansas -abortion-trial15-2009mar15,0,4784156.story

btw, do you anti choice folks advocate killing abortion doctors? That's what some in Kansas tried to do with Dr. Tiller. Evil, you anti choice types are evil. You cannot prevail at the ballot box, but you keep on.

Vicky
I sure hope you don't have kids. What kind of evil person would force a 9 year old to bear even one child, let alone twins? Do you believe in health of the mother exceptions?

And yup, the 'father' of the now aborted twins is in jail. So what?

And Vicky, if you found out by a prenatal test, in the first week of your pregnancy, that your baby is going to be gay, would you abort?

Trial Of Tiller,The Killer
WICHITA, Kan. – For abortion opponents, the trial of one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers has been a long time coming, a chance for a little bit of justice after years of seeing their efforts thwarted.

To abortion-rights supporters, Dr. George Tiller's trial set to begin Monday is the culmination of repeated harassment, a witch hunt in which his foes have been willing to do anything and everything to gain a conviction.

9 year old raped....here's the cite
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.ht ml

google it too, news. You'll see what a row the RC Church is in right now.

Back Stone Ages?
I'm just shocked sometimes at the blantant disregard and pure ignorance in regards to certain elements of the Conservative base and science.

G

"I had an ectopic pregnancy, and I don't think the scenario presented here is even possible."

A doctor here at TH claims it is possible, I will ask him next time he drops by.

" Even if it was, I doubt I would have consented. And I'm an organ donor... "

Fair enough, it is your decision.

ectopic...
I had an ectopic pregnancy, and I don't think the scenario presented here is even possible. Even if it was, I doubt I would have consented. And I'm an organ donor...

Abortion.....Or Murder?
One poster mentions a nine year old girl who gets raped and becomes pregnant. He never mentioned if the rapist was punished. Was that not important?


When ANYONE is raped,no matter the age,it is a CRIME. Especially if a child is involved. Going to an abortionist may solve the result of the crime,but what about the criminal?

The abortionist should be arrested for sheilding a criminal and hiding his crime. If this is a true story,there are several criminals involved and two victims. Both are children.

It is no sense trying to reason with the unreasonable. They have no heart,no thought process and only are infatuated with The State. They are to be pitied by the rest of us true Americans.

Vicki
"Typical government inefficiencies. Hire 2 workers. One works 8-5 on one and the other works 8-5 on the other. So we see yet again that government is the problem. "

Silly arguments.

Our University system is used for base research concerning stem cells and other new technologies. I would not classify grad students as typical government workers.

What is inefficient, researcher may know that work on an existing stem cell line is fruitless. Yet they continue to work with them since it is the only way to obtain Federal grant money.

But yes, government indirectly managing the research centers is inefficient.


Just one more
example of the lefts diregaurd for human life. What is next, experiments on baby who survive an abortion? This man is a far left radical. I am glad I did'nt vote for this man, it helps me sleep at night.
Kirk

Vicki
"Mod mark keeps focusing on Ectopic pregnancy because he hopes to trap us with the VERY SPECIAL case (happens approx 1 in 50 pregnancies)"

It is not a trap, it is an argument which nullifies all your moral objections to ESC research.

Only 1 in 50 means that there are ~80,000 ectopic pregnancies occurring in the US every year. Even with a 50% donor rate, that is a huge number.

My problem with religious righties, failure to compromise even when we satisfy your moral objections.


explanations
Mod Mark Location: NY writes:
"Laboratory equipment would be divided up as federal or non-federal funded. Duplicate equipment would have to be purchased."

I am surprised you did not point to this as an evil capitalist trick to double the profits of some companies.

Mod Mark - "If Federal money partially paid the salaries of the researcher, silly rules such as work on new stem cell line is forbidding between 8:00 till noon."

Typical government inefficiencies. Hire 2 workers. One works 8-5 on one and the other works 8-5 on the other. So we see yet again that government is the problem.

More on live vs evil
Lonny Location: CA writes
"did you hear about the nine year old girl who was raped by her stepfather and got pregnant?......"


Apparently you didn't either as you posted no link to a cite to support your "point"


Lonny - "This is just what you fundy types see...the woman (here a NINE YEAR OLD GIRL who happened to be able to get pregnant, it happens earlier all the time because of hormones in our foods) is RAPED by an evil being, and you think she'll get over the RAPE by being FORCED to have the baby."


You should try it sometime. (being raped) It is not something you EVER get over. Punishing the completely INNOCENT child by putting it to death does NOT help.


Lonny - "And some man made institution--the RC CHURCH--gets to play god and decide that the spawn of that evil event is born and becomes what?


What ever the spawn wants. But that is the point. The spawn (we call them babies) gets to decide.


Lonny - "Do you know what happens when that child, if it had not been aborted, learns of its heritage?"


And you don't either. At least the child gets the CHOICE if it is allowed to live. There is that "playing god thing." But it is the Abortionist playing god instead of the church.



Lonny - How the 9 year old ends up feeling, how the negligent mother of the 9 year old feels?


What negligent mother? Did you add a new player to your little play and forget to properly introduce her to the audience?


Lonny - "And the RC Church lets the evil being stay in the church"


Bad Church. No Donut. Btw in your little play did the rapist get thrown in jail? If not why not.


Lonny - "If it isn't viable, it isn't a person. You lose this argument every time."


Tell us again of embryos and in vitro fertilization.


Lonny - Choice for all.

except for the children. I think I really like being seen as EVIL from Lonny's POV.

Live is evil spelled backwards
Lonny Location: CA writes
"Vicki
you may be the most evil person I have ever met."


Why Thank You dear. Coming from you that is quite an honor.

Vicki

Understand the stupidity of the ban by Bush.

Federal money could only be used on specific lines of stem cells. The States and/or the private sectors did fund the development new lines.

Laboratory equipment would be divided up as federal or non-federal funded. Duplicate equipment would have to be purchased.

If Federal money partially paid the salaries of the researcher, silly rules such as work on new stem cell line is forbidding between 8:00 till noon.

It was a waste of tax payer money and just a feel good measure by Bush.


Kathy
Just wondering how all of the cafeteria Catholics that voted for Obama are feeling right about now.

Happiness
Bill Location: IL writes:
"THE FINAL SOLUTION
Here is the answer. Stem cells are used to discover cures for cancer, diabetes, alzheimers, mental illness, heart problems, muscular dystrophy and a multitude of diseases but if you are a REPUBLICAN the cures are NOT available to you or your children or your parents.

NOW ARE YOU REPUBLICANS HAPPY?"


So ESC cures for Democrats only
and ASC cures for Republicans only.

Well based on the failure modes in ESC (mentioned but not documented in this thread) that is probably ok for a LOT of Republicans.


Life Begins
Robert Location: AZ writes:
"Back to Basics
The whole question comes down to one question: when does the embryo become a human life?"

Well based on the multiple successful invitro implantations of embryos into women (The reason given earlier in this thread for having frozen ones around) we must presume that the embryo is a human life at least from the moment it CAN be implanted.

And even if that is not quite correct we must err on the side of the Hippocratic oath.

Kosher rules
Victoria writes:
"If mankind had been following the the cleansing rituals layed out in the Bible, it's doubtful that there would have been such a time as the Dark Ages and many of diseases we now how would most likely never have come along."

A careful study of "Kosher" practices with microbiology in mind will quickly convince that there is indeed scientific discovery hidden in the religious texts. I have helped a Jewish friend keep her kitchen "Kosher" from time to time and it works out to be as you say good cleaning practices.

Can't tie in to which food to eat / not eat but the cleaning all makes sense.

A hypocrisy exam, shall we?
McCain is a Republican
.
Feingold is a Democrat
.
McCain adhered to the National spending limits imposed by the McCain/Feingold bill
.
Br'obama raised $745 million in largely untracable "small" donations. Br'obama did not post a donor list below $2500.00. Br'obama purchased the election from special interests
.
Question:
As a man of principle (or principal), who did Feingold vote for?
.
And your answer is?


defies explanation, sort of
There can be a few possible explanations for Barak's callous disregard for using non-controversial converted skin cells instead of fetal stem cells: he wants to send a clear, victorious message to those who disagree with him. He's said it: I won. He has a strange penchant for rubbing things in peoples' faces...time and time again.

It's not a very becoming quality in a leader; and it betrays a huge ego.

First
Robert Location: AZ
"And the First shall be Last
I'm amazed in that long and spurious list of the alleged crimes of conservatism First listed he didn't also blame us for making the White Sox never win the Series. It is hard to make sense of, and therefore to refute, a farrago of lies, half truths, and impossible to categorize fantasies."


If you feel like bothering go thru his points one by one and observe that each point is proven by bald assertion.

Then if you feel like it you can select some and make a counter assertion with links to cits to support your assertion.

I mostly just ignore his points.

Cocker Spaniel
No, not disingenuous. While the Japanese skin-to-stem-cell process might qualify for grants under general programs, it is now at the back of the bus, while the embryo killings are riding in the front seats.

twomay
And only the liberals would do it. Go ahead, pickle your brains until your messages look like asduas fa dfais6 aosdio 7a8f asdiasdypf;iasasou asd78asy askfasd.

a big royal purple hug
ha. more like a purple haze.

George got to.
First writes:
"Since Bush got away with castrating Congress and Conservatives raised no objections, why should'nt Obama enjoy the same rights and priveleges to do as he pleases?"

Another example of what sounds for all the world like a child's protest "George got to do it so why can't I?". Many presidents including Bush and Clinton have (mis) used executive orders. That still does not make it ok. The office and power of President is NOT A RIGHT. It is a rather important responsibility.

Wager
tea party writes:
" The Tommy's in this world are to be pitied, they have such cold and empty lives. "

To the Tommys in this world I offer Pascal's wager.

Lonny
The very least you owe us is an authoritative link to the original story.

I am not nor ever have been a Roman Catholic, but I understand it is fairly easy to reverse an excommunication through a confession process. And that as a private organization that church has the right to say who belongs and who does not. Maybe the women didn't want to stay with the Roman Catholics any more, but are now going to the Methodist church down the street. If the Roman Catholics are supposedly so evil, why wouldn't you applaud such a scenario?

Savior?
Failing to properly define Savior Socialism
First writes:
"Obviously painting Christ as a Conservative when his teachings were Liberal and clearly favored Savior Socialism over Crony Capitalism was like putting lipstick on a pig.
http://www.LiberalLikeChrist.com/"

providing a link that does not exist. The closest I could find with a google search was http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/

Nothing in there matches socialism so the definition remains obscure.

Checking Capitalism, Socialism, Crony Capitalism we find
----
Capitalism
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Capitalism

Socialism
2 b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
(2b cause it was closest to what these folk said about how they wanted to have the (US) government run things)

Crony capitalism is an allegedly capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between businesspeople and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth.

Crony capitalism is believed to arise when political cronyism spills over into the business world.
States often said to exhibit crony capitalism include the People’s Republic of China; India, especially up to the early 1990s when the manufacturing was strictly controlled by the Central Government….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism
----

If Crony Capitalism is the spilling over of government politics into business why would they want Socialism which is the COMPLETE spillover.

Obama the liar and control freak.
The bulk of lefties are serial liars and control freaks. Obama is not the first and will not be the last.

As for morons like "First" (what, first in the line for a dunce cap) the effect is that of naughty children who have taken over the school. They urinate on the blackboard to erase the lessons that were written there. We are but a few steps from a "Lord of the Flies" scenario.

Vicki
What on earth does this have to do with stem cell research? Or did I miss something?

This is exactly how Obama operates
With full teleprompter confidence he assures the American people that he makes sound decisions based on common sense and the common good and then plays them for fools and does just the opposite. Instead of unifying he throws his assumed electoral weight behind his leftist cronies, like baby killers at all costs, even when there are sound, scientific alternatives. Then his lapdog pmm (Propaganda Media Machine aka msm) never calls him on it so that he can continue this shell game scam on the uninformed.

Please take it upon yourself to help the uninformed and tell them every chance you get that to support a dim is to give these scam artists carte blanche to bankrupt the country, financially and morally.

We have to stop this travesty that resulted from an eight year crusade of Bush-bashing that continues to this day with the Oblaba spin machine that continually invokes the "inherited problem" that he will play for as long as possible for another eight years.

Understanding
Bob writes:
"This is obvious in the placement of the "not" within the relative clause modifying "cells". "

Are we talking about the same folk that can not understand the 2nd amendment?

protection
toosoonold writes:
"Denise. There is a statute in the state of Illinois that already protects the life of any infant born alive. Please read:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072005100K6. htm"



1 down 56(oops 49) to go.

proofs
Tim Location: IL writes:
"And so the night of the living dead
of the right continues into the daylight"

Ad Hominem attack.

Tim - "The shallow hypocrisy of "anti-abortion" right wing religious folk is some of the most laughable of the incredulous crap that comes out of their holier-than-thou mouths."

Ad hominem attack

Tim - "Do you people really think anyone is "pro" abortion? Of course you do--otherwise it'd be tough to think you're fighting evil!!"

Proof by bald assertion

Tim - "While the religious right decries abortion, that's all they do. They don't adopt,"

Proof by bald assertion.

I assert that religious people (including what ever the "right" is do adopt. I offer as proof
http://library.adoption.com/articles/religion-spirituality- and-adoption.html

Lot of Q and A there if there are no religious adoptions.

Btw We DID adopt my daughter so we do walk the walk.




Vicki
I agree 100%
There are thousands and thousands of couples on waiting lists to adopt these "unwanted" babies and they are being murdered to the tune of 4,000 a day.

Adoption....the loving option.

Sins of the father
C.H. Location: WI writes:
"This is the same starting point that Roe v Wade took. "Shouldn't women be allowed to have abortions in the cases of incest and rape?"
Now we have an abortion industry, with no regard for morality. "

I believe that the Justices erred in their thinking in this as I have mentioned already pregnancies that are the result of rape and or incest etc are most unfortunate but like the physical bruises (Presuming forceable rape) the pregnancy will eventually (~9 mo) end. this is not desirable but is livable. Punishing the innocent child with DEATH for the sin (crimes) of the parent(s) is however a bit cruel though we can not say unusual.

Now you will hear some on the left scream out "Unwanted child". To them I say Adoption.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/statistics/adoption. cfm#dom

Sen. McCain also
is for Embryonic Stem Cell research and most likely would have supported fed. funding for it.
So whether he or Obama would have won, either way this legislation would probably have occured.
About BAIPA, in article- "indefensible votes Obama cast as an Illinois state senator. At issue was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, a piece of legislation designed to affirm the full human rights of babies who managed to survive abortions. In short, Obama voted repeatedly against the provision, and then offered a string of evolving, profoundly dishonest excuses for those votes."
Actually Obama has said he is for BAIPA and would have voted for the Fed version. At the state level, the 16 bills presented 2001-2004 were problematic because there was already an Ill. law saying the same thing, and all but the last 2 or 3 didn't have a "neutrality clause". One of these last bills while in committee was ammended to have the clause, but still didn't pass because it was seen to potentially erode abortion rights. Obama was not alone in these concerns. 1 Also, the vote was 6 to 4 against, so really his vote against was inconsequential, (I think he voted last). AMA and Planned Parenthood were also against it.

1 http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/aug/21/local/chi-z orn_21aug21

By the way
Mod mark keeps focusing on Ectopic pregnancy because he hopes to trap us with the VERY SPECIAL case (happens approx 1 in 50 pregnancies) where most of us are talking about abortion including partial birth etc.

------------------------------------------
There's no way to transplant an ectopic (literally, "out of place") pregnancy into your uterus, so ending the pregnancy is the only option.
http://www.babycenter.com/0_ectopic-pregnancy_229.bc
-------------------------------------------

My question is if there are all those embryos in the deep freeze that are used to help infertile couples then why can we not capture and freeze the embryo in ectopic pregnancy cases?

Another poster was of the opinion that the embryo or the procedure to end the pregnancy would be too damaging to the embryo so it would not be usable either for implantation or parts.


revealing timing
Mod Mark Location: NY writes:
-----------------------------------------------
"So is organ donation a sin? Am I a sinner if I donate my organs when I die?

If not, why would using embryos from ectopic pregnancies be a sin?

The lack of response from this point is quite revealing.
-----------------------------------------------

Your lack of patience is most revealing. I have however now read your thesis and offer this additional response.

Is someone else offering YOUR organs up for donation a sin? And on THEIR timetable not yours?

Embryo ethics
Well, if we're going to complain about the destruction of grouping of about 100 cells, which is the stage of the embryo when is is implanted, then why don't we go all the way and stop the destruction of unused embryos once the couple has conceived?

Or better yet, only allow one embryo at a time to fertilized and planted, so the others don't have to be destroyed. Not cost effective? Shouldn't make a difference when you're talking about principles.

I don't see any consistency here.


Townhall Drinking game
Here's a fun activity, folks: Every time someone compares liberals to Nazis on a Townhall comment board, take a shot... You'll probably have a BAC higher than Keith Moon's by the time you get halfway through.

There are people who hang out by the bus station handing out pamphlets who sound more composed and reasonable.

qualifications
Mod Mark Location: NY writes:
"If you wish to raise the topic of useful idiots, look at Rowley's post and you will find he is raising the birth certificate once again."

You seem to be missing the point. It is not that we are so interested in his Birth Certificate as we are interested in his qualifications. You will note for instance that Mr Obama is hiding a lot of things. Inquiring minds want to know why.

The Birth Certificate is merely a very specific item where there is not much wiggle room.


Horribly disingenious article
Executive Order 13435 reaffirmed the ban on ES cell research, and therefore Obama HAD to revoke it in order to permit funding for research on new ES cell lines. Obama's order does absoltely NOTHING to ban or prevent further research on adult stem cells as implied by the author.

Granted, this is par for the course for Townhall, but nothing but lies!

recycling
Ernest writes:
"To have Obamavich de-fund one of the most promising areas of stem cell research, funded under the Bush administratin, is vindictive, mean, and short sighted. But then what can we expect from a sociapathic self aggrandizer who sees no problem with sucking the brains out of and infant and discarding the body in the trash."

They do not discard the body. They recycle.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3170
http://www.lifedynamics.net/Abortion_Information/Baby_Body_ Parts/

An Abortion here - a stem cell there ...
and pretty soon you are talking about REAL MURDER ...

Murderers LOVE company ...

AND Pres. O'Borter is no exception ...

Force Drs. to perform abortions against their conscience ... APPALLING!

ALL of you so-called PRO-LIFE Christians that voteD for OBAMA need to repent ...

It sickens ME that any Christian would HAVE voteD for a man Who cannot decide - even for his own Conscience - when life begins ...

OR when the 14th amendment applies to a fetus ..

YOu know that he was lying ... he knows when a life is a life ... and that is when HE and HIS NAZI DRS. and Planned Parenthood say so ...

all of you Christians heard him say that when it comes to matters of life an death ...

it was ABOVE HIS PAYGRADE to decide ...What a fraud ...

As a Christian ... I have never and will never vote for a PRO-DEATH candidate ...

REPENT ... REPENT FOR THE TIME IS AT HAND ...

You may get your FREE HEALTHCARE ... but it will be at the expense of innocent helpless fetuses via abortion and the elderly via euthinasia ...

WELCOME TO NAZI-AMERICA!

If you voted for Obama now is the time to join in the fight to stop this Hitler-wannabe ..

Bill Misses The Point
We're talking about embryonic stem cells Bill. There have been no cures from embryonic stem cells; the only cures to-date have been from the utilization of adult stem cells. How about this, we let all Democrats have the cures from their "beloved" embryonic stem cells; we Republicans will take the cures, past, present and future, from the adult stem cells.

Obamanable Abortion
Guy: Good and timely article. A couple of thoughts:

1. Born Alive Infants

I can not understand why this practice, as portrayed by the Chicago Hospital Abortion Nurse is not, very simply put, MURDER.

I would really appreciate it if some Attorney/Prosecute can explain the difference between this procedure, done by trained medical personnel, and deliberate strangling, or suffocating, or discarding a newly born infant in a dumpster or on a street corner when done by a non-medical person. For these things we prosecute these people. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE???

My thought here, because if these tiny "people" are given the "sanctity of life" so must all the others that "die" in the abortion process. The entire fabrication of the Abortion Lie falls a apart. Mothers, Doctors, other associated consenting adults are indulging in the horror of "Infanticide". This against the laws of God AND Man.

2.Regarding Stem Cell Research: BO is simply breathing new financial life into the dwindling coffers of Planned Parenthood and other Abortion Mills. He has given governmental sanction to, and paid for, birth of a brand new industry.

It should be called "Mothers for hire", you screw em, we get to sell the results. For this we will pay you.

Alway, Always follow the money. This is grand payback to another enormous source of Obama campaign funding and support. It is disgusting beyond words.

PC is Thought Control
LEE


Bill IL REPY 173
Which type of stem cell? And why are you not capable of a rational distinction?

Bill, No Dog In This Fight
"Stem cells are used to discover cures for cancer, diabetes, alzheimers, mental illness, heart problems, muscular dystrophy and a multitude of diseases but if you are a REPUBLICAN the cures are NOT available to you or your children or your parents."

I don't necessarily have a vicious dog in this fight other than the fact that, as a fiscally-conservative (Constitutionalist) Independent, I believe the government has zero business using tax dollars to fund the research. That being said and in an effort to keep the debate honest, please give us one specific example (name of person) where embryonic stem cells cured EACH of the diseases that you mentioned.

WILLIAM CA REPLY #19
Clearly you are prone to presumption on many levels as World War II was long over before I was born. But taking refuge in sociological trivializations and cliché’s of a nihilistic temperament are really what you use as a substitute for thought. Isn’t it?

THE FINAL SOLUTION
Here is the answer. Stem cells are used to discover cures for cancer, diabetes, alzheimers, mental illness, heart problems, muscular dystrophy and a multitude of diseases but if you are a REPUBLICAN the cures are NOT available to you or your children or your parents.

NOW ARE YOU REPUBLICANS HAPPY?

an abortion in itself
Obama is a coward,has no respect for life,none for our military as evidenced by his actions...so why would one expect that he'd give a rats a$$ about a late term abortion where a baby survives? He is a disgrace to humanity...OBAMA LIES ...BABIES DIE !!!!! No wonder Nancy princess Pelosi got a "blow off " from the pope ...she's as ignorant and irrevelant as her Prez. & thugs in Washington.

Victoria you're killin' me
"There are many, many scientific statements in the Bible, made thousands of years before modern man "discovered" them"

Uh, like what? I mean, I know that without the "scientific statements" in the Bible, marine biologists would never have known that it's possible to live inside a whale, but besides that, there's not a whole lot to back up that claim. The Bible was written during the Bronze Age. It instructs us to never eat food prepared by a woman on her period. There is no scientific knowledge contained in the Bible.

"If mankind had been following the the cleansing rituals layed out [sic] in the Bible, it's doubtful that there would have been such a time as the Dark Ages and many of diseases we now how would most likely never have come along."

Yet another insane statement. Biblical cleansing rituals? Like what, bathing in a communal laver? Drinking wine from the same cup as 300 other people? Sure, that would prevent the spread of disease! Seriously, I would love to know what Biblical cleansing rituals would have prevented diseases from ever existing. Any examples to back up that outrageous claim?

"I'm not trying to be harsh or rude, but it's actually people who think like you who are the clueless [sic]. You will find this out in due time."

You don't sound harsh or rude, just incredibly arrogant and ill-informed. You are indeed "the clueless," but I doubt you'll ever find this out.

Choice. Whos?
Mod Mark Location: NY writes:
"If we choose, we allow the use of our bodies when we die for research or organ donation."

Not if "we" choose. If YOU as an individual choose. Note that you do NOT commonly choose when you will make this donation.

Mod Mark - "Then what is wrong if a mother donates her embryo from a ectopic pregnancy?"

The mother is not the child. Would you like your mother to donate you to science? And choose when?

cottoneyed
Amen !! You hit the nail on the head!

punishments
William Location: OH writes:
"For the liberal mindset, the convenience of the mom, avoiding damage to the planet, potential usefulness to society, avoiding embarrassment were all sufficient reasons for this murder."

In a different thread on the subject of abortion someone asked me if a woman should be punished by having a baby if she had been raped.

I responded that abortion would punish the completely innocent child with DEATH and that seems completely unreasonable to me.

bo & his asscts = adolph hitler
calculated, cunning and with his "nice guy" cover that only his blind sheep supporters refuse to see through and those that are benefiting $$ & power, ignore.
the ignorant sheep who were so driven to attack Bush are on a trance over this con man and his associates' act. They are too ignorant and hyponotized by an act rather than "content."

"Fine words and an insinuating appearance are seldom associated with TRUE VIRTUE." "Someone who is a clever speaker and maintains a "too smiley" face is seldom considered a humane person" phony baloney, bo to the t !

Now do you understand what a con man you voted for, instead of a genuine hero ! Get out of your trance,

You FOOLS !

A "fetus"
has DNA which is distinct from the woman who is carrying him/her.
So much for the tired canard of a woman's rights over "her" body, because it isn't.
If it ain't a baby- you ain't pregnant.
If you believe the world has too many humans on it- remove yourself.
Of course, you can try to remove me instead, but I guess it's easier to remove embryos before they grow up; they can't fight back.
Typical leftist non-thought.

Uses
hoodaticus and Ranger are correct.

Obama's actions are much more like "Soylent Green" then Roots. Ironic though

What must be understood about
the left(fascists)is that at their core, they are nasty, sub-human, immoral, and vindictive. They should NEVER be trusted, and you should NEVER do business or enter into agreements with them. They are INDECENT, and they should be segregated and kept away from decent people. The reason B. Hussein Obambi is so adored by this scum, is that he embodies all the above "qualities", yet he projects just the opposite, and is able to fool the unsuspecting. This "man" is no more a "born again" Christian, than is Satan, himself. If he really were a "born again", he would have never been a candidate of the this party. Someday this "man" and his party, will have it's comeuppance, and they will be laid bare and found wanting. To that, there is no doubt! There is nothing under the sun as low, and low down as a leftist(fascist), nothing.

Stem cell research
Someday stem cell research will make dramatic cures.
By revoking 13435 Obama will reduce the chance that non-embroynic research led to the cures.
The media will heap praise on Obama and the liberals, and heap scorn on Bush and the pro-lifers.
It doesn't matter if this delays cures by 5 years. It only matters that they can claim the credit.
If cures come from existing emb. lines or skin based stem cells, the media will still give the credit to Obama.
YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST FOLKS!

its always been clear
Obama himself is, to borrow two of your words guy, a grotesque disgrace.
I can only pray that a true American patriot finds the strength, means, and opportunity to put an end to this wretched despots rule.

Obama lied...
...babies died.

Researchers follow the funds
Then if the research shows that ESC is not the answer, the researchers will stopping working with ESC and the issue will be over.

On the contrary, researchers will do research for which they get paid. The decision on EO 13435 illustrates that funding decisions will be based solely on political considerations rather than scientific potential, exactly what the Bush administration was accused of.

Scientists will take millions in government money and if they find nothing, that will justify millions more.

Back to Basics
The whole question comes down to one question: when does the embryo become a human life? If you are Doctor Peter Singer of Princeton's medical ethics department, real human life begins a month or more after birth. My college biology textbook says that human life begins at conception, which scientific viewpoint my religion confirms.

Obama said such questions were "... above his pay grade." This is not honest. You still must choose if you are going to go around signing bills that destroy human embryos.

So, "pro-choice" advocates-- when does human life begin?

Victoria
"I'm not trying to be harsh or rude, but it's actually people who think like you who are the clueless. "

Well yes, you are being rude.

Obama lifts ban on ESC research
I think everyone in this forum can agree that ASC research & application to actual human diseases has been a huge success, while ESC has not had one success. If the ESCers cannot agree on that, they are not very-well informed. Before Obama lifted the ban, we had two viable methods of stem cell use, both without the use of Embryonic stem cells.

So with the controversy over destroying human embryos, based on the fact that they are human life, why are Obama and his supporters so bent on doing away with one of two non-controversial methods of ASC research and use as revealed in this article? Might I offer that their view will be more palatable in view of the fact most of them also support abortion rights. They don't care about killing babies, whether it be by partial-birth abortion all the way back to the first conception of human life as an Embryo. Also, Obama has a lot of payback credits due his big-time campaign money supporters (many people will be greatly enriched monetarily), so much so that he has lost all sight of facts in the controversy and is willing to commit even more Federal funds to continue with ESC, again in the HOPES of curing something, someday. Where is any mention of funding with Federal funds for ASC? It seems to be that in the interests of "fairness", he would not ignore the most successful of the two methods--he's supporting the loser. He's also ignorant, or just hiding facts, that ESC, when it has been used in humans, has caused hair and bones to grow inside the brain of ESC recipients, eventually causing death, as just one grotesque example.

Summing up, ESC kills rather than heals, but ASC is already on the right road for the future with proven, exciting results of cures, even growing new spinal cord material. Obama listens to his ill-informed and agenda-driven advisors instead of checking out the facts for himself, thereby becoming agenda-driven himself.

Barbie
"ESC grow unwanted teeth cells on the heart, tumors in the brain. ASC have not done any of that."

Then if the research shows that ESC is not the answer, the researchers will stopping working with ESC and the issue will be over.

No need for any government involvement.



Somebody get Victoria
She's waaaaaaaay out there.

Lonny CA
Note to Lonny-I'm sorry, but you have no clue as to what you are talking about. God created science. He has no need to "mix" with it. There are many, many scientific statements in the Bible, made thousands of years before modern man "discovered" them.

If mankind had been following the the cleansing rituals layed out in the Bible, it's doubtful that there would have been such a time as the Dark Ages and many of diseases we now how would most likely never have come along.

Many of the greatest scientific minds that ever lived, and are living now, were and are, committed, Bible-following Christians.

I'm not trying to be harsh or rude, but it's actually people who think like you who are the clueless. You will find this out in due time.

Good article, Guy-As for Obama, he has an amazing ability to lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. He's so desperately jealous of President Bush, he can barely stand it, most likely because Bush had the support of the majority of evangelical voters and Obama knows he does not. He seems to be absolutely driven to undo every Bush policy he possibly can as quickly as he can, and for those that he can't completely undo, he appears to be trying to weasel a way to take credit for how successful they are. Just you watch.

all advances in stem cell
have been through the use of adult stem cell. Often times even using the donors own stem cells.

ESC grow unwanted teeth cells on the heart, tumors in the brain. ASC have not done any of that.

Obama is the same as the guy who hires a hit man to kill another person.

He gets someone to do the dirty work. Both are guilty of murder. The trigger man would not kill if he had not been paid. The one who hires the job to be done is more guilty than the shooter.

This is the fault of social conservative
s who fail to communicate the latest science that proves beyond a doubt that the human embryo is a living human being.

Human? Check the DNA, which is complete and unique from the time the baby is only a one cell creature.

Living? These little tiny people are very active from the start, accurately copying the DNA strand over and over as it rapidly duplicates itself, checking its work before it goes on to the next step, and making necessary corrections.

The more we combat evil and ignorance with the light of truth, the more successful we will be.

But if we sit in the corner like little Jack Horner, declaring what good little boys we are, we will never get anywhere.

Time to pull the thumb out, Jack!

JD
i make the connection allright. if you are pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, then "mother nature" will lay the plague of HIV on your doorstep. "it's about Obama voters". no it is not. plenty and I mean plenty of people of all political persuasions contract HIV. shame on you.

AMEN !!!
Vice President Cheney charged Sunday morning on CNN that President Obama is using the recession “to try to justify” what is probably the largest expansion of federal authority “in the history of the Republic.”

“I worry a lot that they’re using the current set of economic difficulties to try to justify a massive expansion in the government, and much more authority for the government over the private sector,” Cheney said in his first television interview since leaving office. “I don’t think that’s good. I don’t think that’s going to solve the problem.”

Don't Fool Mother Nature
I find this article from today's Washington Times very encouraging.

It's about Obama voters. We conservatives can relish the fact that Mother Nature cannot be trumped. Liberals deceive themselves thinking they can make their own reality. Sadly, they won't make the connection between my statement and this article.

At least 3 percent of District residents have HIV or AIDS, a total that far surpasses the 1 percent threshold that constitutes a "generalized and severe" epidemic, according to a report scheduled to be released by health officials tomorrow.

That translates into 2,984 residents per every 100,000 over the age of 12 -- or 15,120 -- according to the 2008 epidemiology report by the District's HIV/AIDS office.

"Our rates are higher than West Africa," said Shannon L. Hader, director of the District's HIV/AIDS Administration, who once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe. "They're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya."


And the First shall be Last
I'm amazed in that long and spurious list of the alleged crimes of conservatism First listed he didn't also blame us for making the White Sox never win the Series. It is hard to make sense of, and therefore to refute, a farrago of lies, half truths, and impossible to categorize fantasies.

Try focusing on one thing at a time and give us an argument using reason and experience. Your shopping list doesn't work.

To Kathryn and all conspiracy nuts
The conspiracy theory that Democrats want to conduct medical research for the sole purpose of "killing babies" is more kooky than the moon landing conspiracy theory, the 9/11 Truth movement, and all the JFK theories put together. It might even be nuttier than the wingnut theory that global warming is a hoax that scientists across the globe concocted to repress the advancement of western society. Take off your tinfoil helmet and come back to planet Earth for a bit, sweetheart.

Anyway, let's put things in perspective. This "moral dilemma" was concocted out of whole cloth by social conservatives; nothing that happens in the course of this embryonic stem cell research is any different, morally speaking, from what takes place in a fertility clinic. If these embryos contained anything approaching the moral standing of actual personhood then we’re already in the midst of a microscopic holocaust, all in service of the "Octomom." If you're concerned about science tinkering with nature, you can start there.

THE REAL TRUTH OF CLONING
Frankenstein doctors and scientists are the generational Marxists from the Nazi era of those searching for the perfect race so that those who live behind the veil and remain unseen and meet in secret places with their own can take our tax dollars to destroy human beings and experiment for their own purpose; they aren't into savings lives; they're into killing unborn babies; and using embryos to reach their goal; and giving multi-millions to Planned Parenthood to push women and girls into abortions; and promote militant gay rights to shut everyone else up by threatening a free nation with a "hate crime." By the way, what happens to all of the aborted embryos? Does anyone out there know? Are they buried; trashed; used as experiments or given names and buried?

To Hendry B in TX
You said:
"So much for Constitutional government! This presidential pretender can unilaterally stop or start expenditure of Federal funds by his signature? What happened to the power of our Congress?"

Bush II did away with Congress power. Through Bush's unconstitutional signing statements, he grabbed power and claimed "Executive Privelege" and asserted the principle of "Unitary Executive Power" effectively nullifying Congress and becoming a dictator. Congress has been demoted Ceremonial status now and will remain so unless Bush is prosecuted for his serial war and Constitutional crimes.

Since Bush got away with castrating Congress and Conservatives raised no objections, why should'nt Obama enjoy the same rights and priveleges to do as he pleases? The die has been cast. The precedent has been set. Conservatives disdain for our Constitution, flagrant neglect of their sworn oaths to uphold and defend our Constitution and servile worship of Bush as President and King means that future presidents can and will do whatever they please. We are a post Constitutional society.

Obama's Stem Cell Disgrace?
So much for Constitutional government! This presidential pretender can unilaterally stop or start expenditure of Federal funds by his signature? What happened to the power of our Congress?

We the People need to get control back of our government - before it gets complete control over us.

Let us start by demanding that Obama disclose both his actual birth certificate and his school records which show who he said he was when applying for federal funding. This is at least as important as the verbatim saying of the oath of office - and more important than his signature on one executive order!

To Kathryn in UT
You said:
"I think all Conservatives are missing the point"

Wake up! Conservatives have missed the point for 40 years and grossly injured our nation in numerous ways from wrecking the economy to torturing POWs to training the Taliban to fighting against health care. Conservative policies have effectively devalued American's lives repeatedly and put Americans at a disadvantage in their own land:
Conservatives are guilty of the following:
*Opened up trade with Communist China
*Blocked universal health care for citizens to make Americans less healthy
*Shut down the government (Newt)
*Started illegal wars of aggression (Iraq Afghanistan)to bankrupt the U.S. taxpyer's treasury, squandered our military effectiveness and bolstered Terrorism around the world.
*Used Torture against POW's to violate our Constitution, break our signature to the Geneva Consention, disgraced our nation in the eyes of the world, lowered moral standards for our servicemen, and justified torture against Americans captured in future wars.
*Trained the fledgling Taliban (Reagan)
*Sold weapons including poison gas to Saddam
*Sold weapons to Iran to supply the Black Market and then lied about it(Dishonorable Ollie North)
*Kept the mimium wage a poverty wage to demoralize American workers
*Outsourced jobs to Communist China to impoverish American families
*Imported illegals to undercut American wages and benefits for citizens
*Opposed Science retarding American Science and R&D letting other nations zoom past the USA
*Made College/University unaffordable for many and leaving others with massive debts upon graduation leading to a disadvnataged workforce
*Relaxed usury laws on credit cards (Reagan) to allow big banks to fleece and abuse users.
*Failed to protect the border and legalized Illegals creating the Mexican Invasion (Reagan)

WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS LACK OF HONESTY
ITS TIME TO ACCEPT THAT THE OBAMA HEADS PUT IN OFFICE A REBORN AGAIN AL CAPONE WITH HIS GANG OF THUGS AND THIEVES. THIS COUNTRY IS IN SERIOUS TROUBLE...THE TREASURY IS BEING RUN BY ONE MAN WITH 17 SEATS EMPTY..AND LIES LIES LIES LIES AND MORE LIES...WHEN A MANS WORD IS GIVEN AND TAKEN AND THEN NOT KEPT HES WORTHLESS...HOLD ON TO YOUR WALLET AL CAPONE MIGHT TAKE IT ALL!!!
USA ARMY RETIRED HARD

This is a payoff to Planned Parenthood
and the rest of the abortion industry and nothing more. Margaret Sanger was a racist, bigot and eugenics freak. She only advocated birth control and abortion among "undesirables" such as blacks, hispanics, poles, Italians, Irish, Catholics and poverty-prone whites aka "white trash".

She wanted only the "right people" to have families. She was a disgusting little pig and the Left has canonized her.

EVERY LAST ONE of the positive results from stem cell-based therapies or research has come from ADULT stem cells, fat cells or umbilical cord tissue and blood frozen at birth.

NO person has ever been cured via embryonic stem cell research. Had it happened it would have been the cover story on Time, Newsweek and U.S. New and World Report. The Left would have submitted the doctor(s) for a Nobel Prize by now.

This research is a scientific dry well. It absorbs cash and nothing comes out.

-Ray
Soli Deo Gloria!!

Playing God
Just like almost everything Obama does it is not the end of his actions on the subject. There will be more to come.......a slippery slope.

CH
You and I are on the same page, (Pat Boone also
commented on it) referring to this pretender
as Pharoah. I have had that idea for months.
I did some research regarding the plagues and each time Pharoah was given an opportunity to change his mind before Egypt was hit; and each time he refused. His first move was to order the death of all Hebrew boys 3 months and younger..what was Pharoah Obama's first edicts..
'Let it be written, so let it be done."
We can look at this economy as one plague,
what next?
As for Tommy, I believe he protests too much, he's not so much an atheist as a GOD HATER.
A true atheist would not go to such lengths to
insult and demean people who are believers, they wouldn't care..they'd probably think.."you believe in God, go ahead, knock yourself out..big deal." They wouldn't get their knickers in a twist because other people have
a faith in GOD. The Tommy's in this world are to be pitied, they have such cold and empty lives.

Missing the point
I think all Conservatives are missing the point:
** Why use already proven adult stem cells when there is human life to destroy on ineffective research? **

If I wanted to devalue human life in an effort to further the pro-abortion agenda, this false embryonic stem cell argument is JUST what I'd do.

TO Lonny in CA
You said:
"God and science don't mix. I mean, the earth is only 5000 years old and there is no evolution. Let's reserve scientific advances for those who believe in science, and let the rest of you let your faith heal you. Let us know how that works out for you. (Except, we need to pass laws that prevent faithy types from keeping cures from their kids...I mean, you want state intervention so a woman cannot have an abortion of a pre-born, who the heck are you to deprive your post-born child of medical advances? No different, eh? "

Lonny is right. The Religious Right (like the Taliban) wants it both ways and doesn't realize what hypocrits they are. They LOVE technology: TV, CDs' microphones,Air conditioned churches right wing radio, surgery, safe food, airplanes, etc. All advances from secular Science. Yet they HATE science and want to return to "Biblical Living" where women are treated as chattel, preachers rule with unquestioned power and authority over others, and those who don't agree are the scourage of humanity and are damned to burn for eternity in a lake of fire.

Sorry folks, you can't have it both ways w/o being total hypocrits. The Religious Right should return to living standards of 2000 years ago if they want to be taken seriously.

For Bob
I am glad that you have the ability to discern the meanings and interpretation of the Bush executive order. I still can't follow your logic, but what the heck.

All I am saying is that this article simply builds a strawman so that you can tear it down.

There is no need on the part of the author or the commentors to see what the actual rules that will be written in the next 120 days say, You already know what they will be.

Too bad you weren't so prescient when you elected Bush, things might be a little brighter in the U.S.

Obama was completely correct in revoking Bush's order. It will be supplanted by Obama's order. How do you know that Obama will not support the continued effort to utilize stem cells or other alternative, non-controversial human pluripotent stem cell research?

Please let us all glimpse into the crystal ball that you got (apparently after Obama was elected),

Thanks

Republican War against Science
The Republican War against Science is over and the Pro-Life/Pro-War movement has been roundly criticized and is now discredited.

We can now turn a page in history past the paranoia of the Religious Right with its leftover evangelists and stale rantings from the Reagan/Bush era. Those who find company in their archaic echo chambers and self delusion are modern dinosaurs no longer relevant to the moral and political priorities of America.

After almost 40 years of social retardation under the Religious Right's stewardship, Americans see that those who pretend to be holiest and the best people are neither. Many have proven that they are exceedingly wicked greedy sinful men who neither follow nor observe nor believe in Jesus teachings. They were scam artists who just played on the honesty of gullable Americans.

Because of the hypocracy of the Religious Right, more and more Americans turn away from God. According to the Washinton Post, 76% of Americans self identify themselves as Christians today down from 86% in 1990.
Here's the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/ 03/08/AR2009030801967.html

Those who believe otherwise should review the short list of "Christan heros" who actually turned out to be Satan's deceivors.

The gaggle of notorious sex sinners from the Religiopus Right community include Ted Haggard, Newt, Jim Baker, Swaggert, Larry Craig, and Mark Foley. War mongers like Falwell and Robertson have called for war, assasinations, and been callous on protecting the environment as they have also called for the damnation of others who don't fit into their pocket.

Obviously painting Christ as a Conservative when his teachings were Liberal and clearly favored Savior Socialism over Crony Capitalism was like putting lipstick on a pig.http://www.LiberalLikeChrist.com/