Abortion.What do you think about it?

The amendment states 'it's only a clone if it's implanted'.

Get it? *wink* *nudge*

We're not 'cloning' because we're not 'implanting'.

We're just producing living human embryos in the lab by SCNT.

But they're not 'clones'. *wink* *nudge*

Get it?

0 Replies

Partial-Birth Replay
The Supreme Court has to decide whether it meant what it said about 'partial-birth' abortion.
Monday, November 13, 2006; Page A20

IT ISN'T EVERY day that the Supreme Court confronts a law materially identical to one it has already struck down. But that is what the justices faced last week when they heard oral arguments over the federal ban on partial-birth abortions. Six years ago, the court struck down state partial-birth laws -- ruling that Nebraska's ban was overly broad and lacked an exception for situations in which protecting a woman's health required the use of the disfavored procedure. In response, Congress enacted its own version of the ban, complete with nearly all of the faults from which the Nebraska statute had suffered. The Justice Department contends that the new law can be reconciled with the court's prior ruling. This is laughable. The only way to uphold this law would be to overturn the prior decision -- a step that the justices should not take, in the interest of women's health and out of respect for precedent.

"Partial-birth abortion" is a political term, not a medical one. If Congress had wanted to pass a ban on either late-term abortions or on the particular procedure normally associated with the "partial-birth" label, it was free to do so as long as it defined it carefully and maintained a health exception. It did neither. Instead, it defined "partial-birth abortion" in a fashion that could once again include some abortions performed using the method most common in the second trimester. And it sought to get around the court's insistence on a health exception by asserting, in a purported factual finding, that the procedure is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health.

This, as several lower courts have found, isn't true. And while the Supreme Court generally owes deference to congressional fact-finding, that does not entitle the legislature to get around the high court's constitutional holdings with factual assertions at odds with both its own legislative record and voluminous testimony in the lower federal courts.

The real question this case presents is whether the court, with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retired, will continue to honor its precedent. In that sense, the case will shed important light on the court's new members, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., neither of whom tipped their hands at oral arguments. Both men testified eloquently at their confirmation hearings about their high regard for stare decisis -- the principle that precedents should generally be permitted to stand. Both would send a powerful message of respect for the court's institutional work if, in a case so politically loaded and with so many people expecting a predictable ideological split, they declined the invitation to either contort or reverse a high-profile precedent and merely applied it instead.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The amendment states 'it's only a clone if it's implanted'.

Get it? *wink* *nudge*

We're not 'cloning' because we're not 'implanting'.

We're just producing living human embryos in the lab by SCNT.

But they're not 'clones'. *wink* *nudge*

Get it?

Again, since when have we had sucha elastic definition of what cloning was?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
The amendment states 'it's only a clone if it's implanted'.

Get it? *wink* *nudge*

We're not 'cloning' because we're not 'implanting'.

We're just producing living human embryos in the lab by SCNT.

But they're not 'clones'. *wink* *nudge*

Get it?

Again, since when have we had sucha elastic definition of what cloning was?

You apparently haven't read the definition of cloning in A2.

Quote:

(2) "Clone or attempt to clone a human being" means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

from http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp

So, it's not a 'clone' unless we 'implant' it.

Get it? *wink* *nudge*

0 Replies

No, I've read it. My point is that prior to it, what all encompassing definition of cloning existed in the medical community.

You can't be so indignant about A2 defining something like this. It falls right into logic that the amendment should define what cloning is so that people don't abuse it. You should be happy that A2 makes such a definition.

Do you get it? *wink* *nudge*

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

No, I've read it. My point is that prior to it, what all encompassing definition of cloning existed in the medical community.

You can't be so indignant about A2 defining something like this. It falls right into logic that the amendment should define what cloning is so that people don't abuse it. You should be happy that A2 makes such a definition.

Do you get it? *wink* *nudge*

from the National Institutes of Health http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html (same source as used by the Princeton University Library http://www.princeton.edu/~pressman/genref.htm )

Quote:

Main Entry: 1clone
Pronunciation: primarystressklomacrn
Function: noun
1 : the aggregate of the asexually produced progeny of an individual; also : a group of replicas of all or part of a macromolecule (as DNA or an antibody)
2 : an individual grown from a single somatic cell of its parent and genetically identical to it

Nothing about 'implanting' here.

from http://www.medic8.com/MedicalDictionary.htm

Quote:

clone

<cell biology> A propagating population of organisms, either single cell or multicellular, derived from a single progenitor cell. Such organisms should be genetically identical, though mutation events may abrogate this.

Hmmmmmm. Nothing about 'implanting' here either.

This source states:

"About Medic8®

Medic8® is your trusted source for health information online.

Medic8® (www.medic8.com) is a leading UK medical information website for healthcare professionals and consumers around the world. All content has been reviewed by a qualified UK doctor prior to listing.

About The Medic8 Medical Search Engine:

The Medic8 Medical Search Engine indexes this website and other trusted medical websites on the internet.

Unlike other search engines (which index thousands of sites regardless of the reliability or suitability of their content), Medic8 only indexes health sites that have been hand-picked by a qualified UK doctor. All sites selected for indexing are chosen based on the trustworthiness of their content. If a site is not considered a reliable source of health information, you will not find it in our search results.

About The Medic8 Family Health Guide:

The Medic8 Family Health Guide contains more than 500 health-related articles written by qualified medical professionals.

The editorial board for articles contained in the guide includes:

Dr R Potter, MB ChB, FRCA(I) (Medic8 Director)
Dr J D Martley, MB ChB, FRNZGP (Medical Editor)
Dr G Green, MB ChB, FRACP (Specialist Physician)
Dr L Mclennann, MB ChB, Dip.Obst, FRNZCGP (Family Doctor)
Dr R Roberts, Mb ChB, FRACS (Surgeon)
Dr P Weadon, MBBS, Dip.Obst (Family Doctor)
Dr C Cearns, MB ChB, FRNZCGP (Family Doctor)
Dr J Carter, MB ChB, FRNZCGP (Family Doctor)
Ms N Gauld (Pharmacist)
Dr D Hough, MB ChB (Radiologist) "

from http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/hp.asp

Quote:

Definition of Clone

Clone: Literally a fragment, the word in modern medical science has come to mean a replica, for example, of a group of bacteria or a macromolecule such as DNA. Clone also refers to an individual developed from a single somatic (non-germ) cell from a parent, representing an exact replica of that parent. A clone is a group of cells derived from a single ancestral cell.

Did you see anything about 'implanting' here?

This source:

"About Us

MedicineNet, Inc. - Owned and Operated by WebMD and part of the WebMD Network

MedicineNet.com is an online, healthcare media publishing company. It provides easy-to-read, in-depth, authoritative medical information for consumers via its robust, user-friendly, interactive web site. Since 1996, MedicineNet.com has had a highly accomplished, uniquely experienced team of qualified executives in the fields of medicine, healthcare, Internet technology, and business to bring you the most comprehensive, sought after healthcare information anywhere. Nationally recognized, Doctor-Produced by a network of over 70 U.S. Board Certified Physicians, MedicineNet.com is the trusted source for online health and medical information. The Doctors of MedicineNet are also proud to author Webster's New World Medical Dictionary First and Second Editions (January, 2003) John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; ISBN: 0-7645-2461-5. "

The reason that A2 defines cloning as 'implanting' is so that they can legally produce humans through SCNT (cloning) and still claim that they aren't cloning.

They have defined it away.

0 Replies

But, HUMANS aren't being made. The three definitions you have cited are very interesting. The one I'd give the most creedence to is the first.

You're right nothing refers to inplanting. Again, it seems that creating a more rigid definition is better, especially for uses of medicine and what research can be done. The first definition also doesn't define a replicated organ as a clone either, it only makes reference to progeny. The three definitions are only three of numerous amounts. Even the three you provided weren't 100% congruent. If noone can agree as to what a clone is, then you can't just say something is a clone, i.e. - say that someone is trying to clone a human being.

A2 is not designed to clone human beings, and you know this. There's no agenda behind it. The goal is to create new more effective treatments and potentially cures.

There are so many frozen embryos that are destroyed every year, this gives them a purpose.

I guess I'm not quite sure what your worried/upset about?

If you watched the Colbert Report tonight, you might have heard his stance on this. If you really want to save the embryos from a horific fate and bring them into the world, you can always have a uterus transplant and have one yourself. Razz

0 Replies

Diest, As most of us already understand, most scientists have moral imperatives that will not allow them to "clone" humans. It's the same "fear" people have about terrorists attacking us on our land; it's plausible, but there are many handicaps and fences built around it to handicap anyone wanting to pursue that course.

People just love to cry "wolf."

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

But, HUMANS aren't being made.

What species do you think is being referred to by A2?

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

prettyrussian-
I think its a normal, common thing for any woman going through this to anguish about it - I will never really know, but I imagine its a wrenching decision to have to make.

I'm convinced it would be. Since my wife and I are of reasonably advanced age for having children (38 and 43), we decided when she got pregnant this time, that we would undergo the various tests to determine fetal health. The first step is an ultrasound known as a nuchal translucency, carried out at 12 weeks. We had this scan, and got to see our baby's hands, feet etc. The following day we get a phone call to tell us that we have to see our GP to discuss the results. The GP hands us the report that states that the measurements have returned results of increased risk of 3 separate genetic abnormalities, tells us not to worry too much, and refers us to a specialist obstetrician, who we see that night at 7pm. He recommends an amniocentesis, which can't be carried out until 15 weeks. So we have 3 weeks of stress and worry, waiting to get the amnio done. Finally the day arrives, and includes another ultrasound, so you get to see your baby again, and are told that the amnio results will be another 2 weeks. So after 5 weeks of stress and sleepless nights, and seeing your baby twice, if theirs a bad result, you're asked if you want to terminate. We were lucky. Our tests confirmed we are having a son, with no detectable abnormalities, but I can't imagine the agony for couples who have to make that decision. The right-to-life pricks are worthless scum, who have no idea of the pain that these people have to go through.

1 Reply

@Wilso,

Quote:

The right-to-life pricks are worthless scum, who have no idea of the pain that these people have to go through.

Quote:

Since my wife and I are of reasonably advanced age for having children (38 and 43), we decided when she got pregnant this time, that we would undergo the various tests to determine fetal health.

Wouldn't it make more sense to direct those insults at those who take such risks for a moment or two of pleasure when they have admitted they are aware of the risks and have arrived at the point of having the unborn baby carry the can if a few tests turn up answers they don't want. It is almost made to sound as if "when she got pregnant this time" is some sort of accident when we all know it isn't any accident at all.

And how many tests are there compared to how many possibilities of bad outcomes there are? Is there a test for assholes?

Haven't the elderly couple put themselves through the pain? And seemingly knowingly.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendi, Seems you have very little knowledge about human physiology and psychology.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

spendi, Seems you have very little knowledge about human physiology and psychology.

What else would you expect from a virgin?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

spendi, Seems you have very little knowledge about human physiology and psychology.

That's an astoundingly efficient way of answering a debating point I must say. Did you think it up all by yourself or have you borrowed it from something you once heard in a nursery.

Do people not laugh at you ci?

0 Replies

@Wilso,

I was only wondering Wilso, as I'm sure many other people are , just why you rendered a lady pregnant when you are so aware of the risks that you have to get her involved in the heartsearching you describe and to incur the expense of the procedures either on your own head or that of the taxpayers. And then to envisage the termination of the life you created if the test results didn't come out to your entire satisfaction.

Possibly it is due to your extreme ignorance and selfishness which is also apparent in your response to my perfectly reasonable post.

After all is said and done it is rather easy and somewhat self-indulgent to cause a lady to conceive.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

spendi, Seems you have very little knowledge about human physiology and psychology.

Why do you say this ci? You have children, right? Anyone who has had children- and even people who haven't- know or should know that the whole nine months is a giant crap shoot. Anything can happen at any time during the developmental process to anyone. I think people should be amazed and consider it a miracle when everything DOES go absolutely perfectly. I mean, think about it - all that cell division- it's a miracle.

I remember when I was pregnant, there was a test at twelve or sixteen weeks that was offered - it wasn't required or recommended, but offered - I think it had something to do with checking for spina bifida or some other anomaly, so it probably had to do with spinal cord closure.
Anyway, at the time - all you got were the results of the test - there was nothing they could do for the baby if they found the anomaly - no prenatal corrective surgery or anything, so I told the doctor I didn't want it. Why put yourself in the position of having to make such a decision, or have the stress of sadness or worry if something is found to be wrong?

I'm sure many of the people who believe in the right to life have been pregnant or have known someone who has - it's a pretty common occurrence- so I'm sure they probably do have an idea of what people go through.
Their take is just different than yours Wilso.

Just like people asked me when I was adopting my daughter even though they knew I had given birth to my son - 'Why would you take such a chance adopting?' You have no idea what you'll get.'
I thought that was the craziest question to ask and/or viewpoint to express in the world.
I said, 'When I was pregnant, I had no idea if my child would have spina bifida or cerebral palsy, or down's syndrome or any number of things. I can know that none of these things will be the case with this baby- I know exactly what I'm getting, at least initially - which certainly wasn't the case when I was pregnant.
But it's good to remember that even after a baby is born - no one is ever guaranteed anything.

But I'm glad everything is going well for your son.

0 Replies

Abortion.What do you think about it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know