OK let's do this again, substitute Embryo for fetus, same question, GO! On Mar 13, 4:35 pm, Cold Water <[email protected]> wrote: > You are the retard using "invetro" moron!!! Your "fertilized egg" once it > reaches six to eight cells is known as an embryo Einstein. The EMBRYO is > implanted. YOU are the one asking the stupid question (and I quote) > > " > My response is why wasn't invetro insemination also banned? > > > Are not fetuses destroyed in this procedure" > > An EMBRYO is not a fetus until it has grown in the womb for eight weeks, > therefore your question regarding destroying the fetus is incredibly stupid. > > CW > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "VT VirtualTruth" <[email protected]> > To: "PoliticalForum" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 04:22 > Subject: Re: Obama and Bush compared > > They don't implant fetuses, they implant fertilize eggs, > and define FETUS, are you using the scientific definition > or the layman's term used by pro-lifers? > > On Mar 13, 4:18 pm, Cold Water <[email protected]> wrote: > > The word is "in vitro" and you are possibly confusing an embryo with a > > fetus? > > > CW > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "VT VirtualTruth" <[email protected]> > > To: "PoliticalForum" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 03:53 > > Subject: Re: Obama and Bush compared > > > My response is why wasn't invetro insemination also banned? > > Are not fetuses destroyed in this procedure > > > It was about ideology not reality. > > > On Mar 13, 12:35 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In this article the question relates to which President is more > > > serious and honest about stem cell research... Not only is Obama less > > > serious, but he is dishonest and a far greater ideologue... > > > >http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/using_embryoswithou... > > > > >>> That part of the ceremony, watched from the safe distance of my > > > >>> office, made me uneasy. The other part -- the ostentatious issuance > > > >>> of > > > >>> a memorandum on "restoring scientific integrity to government > > > >>> decision-making" -- would have made me walk out. > > > > Restoring? The implication, of course, is that while Obama is guided > > > solely by science, Bush was driven by dogma, ideology and politics. > > > > What an outrage. George Bush's nationally televised stem cell speech > > > was the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by > > > an American president. It was so scrupulous in presenting the best > > > case for both his view and the contrary view that until the last few > > > minutes, the listener had no idea where Bush would come out. > > > > Obama's address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was > > > populated, as his didactic discourses always are, with a forest of > > > straw men. Such as his admonition that we must resist the "false > > > choice between sound science and moral values." Yet, exactly 2 minutes > > > and 12 seconds later he went on to declare that he would never open > > > the door to the "use of cloning for human reproduction." > > > > Does he not think that a cloned human would be of extraordinary > > > scientific interest? And yet he banned it. > > > > Is he so obtuse not to see that he had just made a choice of ethics > > > over science? Yet, unlike President Bush, who painstakingly explained > > > the balance of ethical and scientific goods he was trying to achieve, > > > Obama did not even pretend to make the case why some practices are > > > morally permissible and others not. > > > > This is not just intellectual laziness. It is the moral arrogance of a > > > man who continuously dismisses his critics as ideological while he is > > > guided exclusively by pragmatism (in economics, social policy, foreign > > > policy) and science in medical ethics. > > > > Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science has > > > nothing to say about what is permissible. Obama's pretense that he > > > will "restore science to its rightful place" and make science, not > > > ideology, dispositive in moral debates is yet more rhetorical sleight > > > of hand -- this time to abdicate decision-making and color his own > > > ideological preferences as authentically "scientific." > > > > Dr. James Thomson, the discoverer of embryonic stem cells, said "if > > > human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little > > > bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough." Obama > > > clearly has not. > > > > On Mar 13, 10:37 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > and Intellectual they both are NOT > > > > >http://the-undercurrent.com/paper/obama-the-intellectual/ > > > > > >>> In action, Obama is clearly not an intellectual. He, like Bush and > > > > >>> other politicians, is a pragmatist—the exact opposite of an > > > > >>> intellectual. Issue after issue, including taxes, the Iraq war, > > > > >>> and > > > > >>> the environment, reveals that Obama has made decisions, not with > > > > >>> reference to firm principles derived from a careful and scholarly > > > > >>> investigation of the facts, but by trying to find some middle > > > > >>> ground > > > > >>> in a landscape of competing opinions. > > > > > What is different about Obama is that he self-consciously knows and > > > > proclaims his approach. But what’s so significant about that, if the > > > > approach itself is anti-intellectual? Obama openly embraces the view > > > > that it is impossible to use the intellect to ascertain the right way > > > > to handle the war or deal with the economy, and so he adopts the tack > > > > of just trying things and seeing what happens. Consider Obama’s claim > > > > that his “core economic theory is pragmatism, figuring out what > > > > works” (“Obamanomics,” NYT, 8/20/08). How is this any different from > > > > prior, allegedly non-intellectual politicians, other than that those > > > > politicians didn’t happen to be explicit about their methodology? > > > > > However much Obama seems to sport the trappings of an intellectual—and > > > > clearly he does—in practice, his policy consists in shooting from the > > > > hip, making short-range decisions without adherence to any firm set of > > > > guiding convictions. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
