Join The Debate!

To uwcharlie:

You’re right: one should remain civil in debates. You’re hjn9justified in chiding me for my abrasive tone in my last post. But have a look at the post from DocNoleCat, who not very subtly compares people in my camp to Nazi vivisectionists. This is the modus operandi of right wing Republicans, who have picked up the issue of abortion as a useful campaign tool.

If you’ve followed the resulting debates at all, then you’re aware of the way in which people like me who favor abortion rights have been characterized. If you know much about medicine and the way it’s actually practiced in the real world, you also know that “late term” abortions are quite rare and are performed, if at all, for very good medical reasons. The anencephalic birth I described is a typical example of a delivery that should have been terminated that way.

As a physician, I’m offended, when I’m accused of being careless of human life. I’m even more deeply offended, when the people who make the accusations do so on the basis of ignorance and misinformation.

Regarding your other point about private research, you’re right: corporations need a substantial profit motive to spend money on basic research. They also need to have substantial resources to begin with. Pharmaceutical companies like Merck and others with their enormous sales base and huge profits still find it necessary to have federal aid to conduct much of their research. It’s just that expensive! Furthermore, there is no guarantee that a given therapy or product will ever be approved and produce a profit; most don’t! Of the small, start-up med-research companies that conduct stem-cell research, how many do you think could afford this level of outlay, not to mention risk? How many could survive the failure of an important project? Only the federal government has the immensely deep pockets required for modern medical research. It has very little to do with the prospects for profit.