Video: The most shameless political ad you’ll ever see

posted at 12:33 am on November 4, 2006 by Allahpundit

Got this from Mary K, who says it all. The answer to Pumpkin’s question at the end of the clip is, he’s the guy elected by a majority of Missourians to make tough moral choices.

The clip was produced by Media Fund, a left-wing 527 with at least one other egregiously unfair ad to its credit. It’s headed by former Clinton aide Harold Ickes, which makes sense given that the racial diversity here is about the same as at one of Billy Jeff’s nutroots meet-and-greets.

Does the left really want to play this game, incidentally? I can think of another kind of ad involving what-ifs and children that would not redound to their political advantage.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Is it invented Pablo?

If abortion has nothing to do with it – why is the word “embryonic” never mentioned?

What on Earth does that mean? You’re talking about an ad campaign, I think. I am not. I’m talking about an area of biomedical research. The people who conduct it don’t talk about abortion, they talk about things more microscopic. And I doubt that those who do abortions discuss “embryonic” things much. They’re busy killing living fetuses.

In other words, you don’t want to deal with where the “stuff” in the microscope and petri dish comes from…and why should you? Because it comes from people!
Embryos are just very small living foetuses!
Killing embryos=abortion=murder
Cloning embryos=murder + identity theft

As Professor Blather said, you’re incredibly intellectually dishonest so don’t try and whittle me down to your level by proclaiming me John Kerry-stupid!
I know enough about HESCR to know it’s morally abhorrent and unless they find a way for it to do anything less than bring someone back from the brink of death, I don’t want to hear any more.
Notice that not one of the afflictions they say that HESC can “cure” is fatal and most of them aren’t even particularly painful.
Is doing this research worth playing God and taking lives before they’ve even begun outside the womb and on my dime?
No. Fricking. Way.

Jen the Neocon on November 5, 2006 at 4:46 AM

In other words, you don’t want to deal with where the “stuff” in the microscope and petri dish comes from…and why should you?

Wherre’d you get that idea? We all know where it comes from. Take a couple of docs, a lab tech or three, some glassware, sperm and an egg. Add them all together, shake gently and then what?

Because it comes from people!

Uh oh… What’s Mr. Hankey gonna think?

Embryos are just very small living foetuses!

No, they’re just not. A fetus does not live in a petrie dish nor in a freezer. Man cannot make a human being, except by the age old, time tested process He put into place, the one that involves a womb. Do you really think man can create human life in the lab?

We can do a lot of things in the lab, but making babies isn’t one of them. Except for after hours, maybe.

Killing embryos=abortion=murder
Cloning embryos=murder + identity theft

Who taught you that math?

As Professor Blather said, you’re incredibly intellectually dishonest so don’t try and whittle me down to your level by proclaiming me John Kerry-stupid!

Do you recall saying this, Jen?

And I’m not gonna look up what happens to embryos at IVF clinics because I don’t want to know, frankly.
The whole subject makes me like throwing up.

You have admitted your ignorance of the subject and yet you want to preach like an expert. You admit to lacking basic facts and yet you want start carving moral proclamations in stone according to your admitted ignorance. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide exactly how stupid that is. John Kerry is irrelevant to the discussion but if you’d like to be graded against him, well…whatever. I’d opt for someone a little more on the ball.

I know enough about HESCR to know it’s morally abhorrent and unless they find a way for it to do anything less than bring someone back from the brink of death, I don’t want to hear any more.

“Rush told me so LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!! I can’t hear you!”

Notice that not one of the afflictions they say that HESC can “cure” is fatal and most of them aren’t even particularly painful.

Oh. My. God. Nuclear powered ignorance on steroids. That is simply amazing.

Have you ever heard of glioblastoma, Jen?

Is doing this research worth playing God and taking lives before they’ve even begun outside the womb and on my dime?

Do you think we can make life outside the womb? Really? Why?

Pablo on November 5, 2006 at 5:39 AM

Several days ago Rush Limbaugh mentioned (covering the M. J. Fox flap) that this bill was really about cloning, not stem cell research like they’d have you believe.

Forget SC research & cloning, is there research being done on IQ booster shots to administer to libs on 11/7?

Coronagold on November 5, 2006 at 8:41 AM

Pablo, you may take conservative positions on everything else, but you’re just a typical Lib on this subject, Frist and Krauthammer notwithstanding.
Krauthammer’s paralysed, so he has a dog in this fight and Frist is a flake–he’s wrong to support HESC and condemn Terry Schiavo’s death by starvation at the same time.
Not my favorite GOP Senator by a long shot and he’ll never be President.

As to how much I’ve read and learned about HESCR since I made that earlier comment, I’ve read and heard ENOUGH.
I don’t need a PhD in bioengineering to have an informed opinion on this subject and (neither do any other American voters) and you’re heckling isn’t going to change that!
I think you’re picking on me because I’m a woman (or “breeder” as homosexuals call us) and that makes me even more qualified to speak of the disposition of human eggs, embryos, foetuses and abortions–I want the government to stay away from my womb and all American wombs!
Further, the government has no business to be in the medical research business.
Or the art business. Or the education business. Or the health care business.
But we pick our battles and hope to win the war against Big Nanny State government one battle at a time.
You can argue the “beauty” of the science of HESCR until the cows come home, but almost all of us here at HA are against it because its ultimately about abortion, eugenics and playing God–all of them practices that we abhor and eschew.
I can’t wait until the good people of Missouri vote this down on Tuesday!

Jen the Neocon on November 5, 2006 at 10:13 AM

Pablo, you may take conservative positions on everything else, but you’re just a typical Lib on this subject, Frist and Krauthammer notwithstanding.

No Jen, I don’t form my opinions based on other people’s opinions or on a party line. I can see that this concept escapes you, but there it is. Not everything is partisan, except to hopeless partisans like you who need for someone to tell them what to think about things.

As to how much I’ve read and learned about HESCR since I made that earlier comment, I’ve read and heard ENOUGH.

Pretty much nothing is enough for you, as you’ve stated.

I think you’re picking on me because I’m a woman (or “breeder” as homosexuals call us) and that makes me even more qualified to speak of the disposition of human eggs, embryos, foetuses and abortions–I want the government to stay away from my womb and all American wombs!

I think you’re full of sh*t, and the big bad man picking on the poor widdle woman ploy isn’t going to fly. As for the “Keep your hands off my womb argument”, two questions:

1. Who’s talking about your womb?

2. Where have I heard that argument before?

Further, the government has no business to be in the medical research business.

The $28.6 billion per annum we spend on the National Institutes of Health, the Congress that appropriates it and the executive that administrates it say otherwise. The vast majority of Americans disagree with you. So does Congress on this issue, by a large margin.

You can argue the “beauty” of the science of HESCR until the cows come home, but almost all of us here at HA are against it because its ultimately about abortion, eugenics and playing God–all of them practices that we abhor and eschew.

I thought Allah was the deity around here. When did you get omniscient? And who gave you permission to start redefining words?

I can’t wait until the good people of Missouri vote this down on Tuesday!

Hey, no way! Rush said that Missouri thing is really about cloning, not ESC’s! You’re cheating! Rush said so!

Pablo on November 5, 2006 at 10:30 AM

and that makes me even more qualified to speak

That is truly and stunningly idiotic. Really it is. That’s nuclear powered ignorance on steroids and jet powered rollerskates. With a tailwind and a downhill grade.

You go, Girl!

I am woman, hear me make an ass of myself! With ovaries!

Pablo on November 5, 2006 at 10:36 AM

Wow, this pablo really has the sources for debate all lined up. Let’s see…Krauthammer, Rush, Senator Frist…did I leave any out?

Just as this left wing moron pretends to do, the Charles Krauthammers, Rush Limbaughs, and Bill Frists of the world considers the issue, weighs in as their personal understanding and appreciation of the issue will allow, and since the aforementioned are national media figures or US Senators, their opinions are widely known.

Embryonic stem cell research is a big fat zero compared to other types of stem cell research and therapy underway. If Rush mentions “cloning”, some left wing dolt shoves a frying pan up his ass wailing about how the right believes a mad scientist is cloning humans (we could use more liberal voters, right, pablo?). Rush knows how to push their buttons while exposing their hypocrisy and fraud on these issues.

Need proof? Just ask this “pablo” – someone I am certain makes the digestion of conservative discussion and literature a staple of his daily routine.

Spider Dan on November 5, 2006 at 11:22 AM

I think i’m going to throw up now. I’ve noticed that they never actually bother giving their viewers all of the basic details like …

he’s not against “stem cell” research. he’s against EMBRIONIC stem cell research. He didn’t vote “against” anyone doing research on stem cell research. He voted against GOVERNMENT FUNDING for EMBRIONIC stem cell research.

but then

the actual facts of the matter don’t really support the poltiical motivations. Can’t have the facts getting in the way … now can we?

One Angry Christian on November 5, 2006 at 11:34 AM

Just as this left wing moron pretends to do, the Charles Krauthammers, Rush Limbaughs, and Bill Frists of the world considers the issue, weighs in as their personal understanding and appreciation of the issue will allow, and since the aforementioned are national media figures or US Senators, their opinions are widely known.

Spider Dan, try using the search function here sometime, dipshit. You too have a big mouth but not a clue as to what you’re talking about. Yet another fool with a mouthful of bile but not a fact to be found.

What is Frist’s position? What is Krauthammer’s position? They’re widely known, right? Tell us about them, jackass.

You’re the sort of clown that gives conservatives a bad name. I repeat, this is NOT Neocon Underground.

Just ask this “pablo” – someone I am certain makes the digestion of conservative discussion and literature a staple of his daily routine.

Well, you finally got something right. Congratulations, Bunky!

Pablo on November 5, 2006 at 12:18 PM

OK, that was some ugly HTML. Round II:

Just as this left wing moron pretends to do, the Charles Krauthammers, Rush Limbaughs, and Bill Frists of the world considers the issue, weighs in as their personal understanding and appreciation of the issue will allow, and since the aforementioned are national media figures or US Senators, their opinions are widely known.

Spider Dan, try using the search function here sometime, dipshit. You too have a big mouth but not a clue as to what you’re talking about. Yet another fool with a mouthful of bile but not a fact to be found.

What is Frist’s position? What is Krauthammer’s position? They’re widely known, right? Tell us about them, jackass.

You’re the sort of clown that gives conservatives a bad name. I repeat, this is NOT Neocon Underground.

Just ask this “pablo” – someone I am certain makes the digestion of conservative discussion and literature a staple of his daily routine.

Well, you finally got something right. Congratulations, Bunky!

There, that’s better.

Pablo on November 5, 2006 at 12:21 PM

pablo…

Careful, now. Your girly side is showing. But, then, you really didn’t try to hide it, did you?

You keep trotting out the public comments of media figures and a US Senator, all the while distorting what others post in this forum. That tells the world you are not very well informed, and 2) you are the one bringing the aforementioned media/government officials into the discussion, incapable of discussing the issues from your personal point of view. I doubt, seriously, you have a personal point of view that extends much beyond fundamental hygiene most humans exercise, but then, what have you proven except that you are an infantile moron?

You need to explain why you obsess about the trio of celebrities and their opinions. The political ad by a failed Dummycrat is despicable, and you aren’t capable of providing the discussion with a single perspective outside those held by someone else. Yet, you dare call someone else a “dirty” name?

Since you are a flimsy excuse for a debater and even weaker blog participant, the world ignores you and that potty mouth. The news flash that you need to absorb is that you’d never say those things me in person. So, take solace in the anonymity of the internet, safe under your mom’s sewing room table. Maybe the cat will lick you into submission before the rest of us do.

Spider Dan on November 5, 2006 at 12:45 PM

Please stop replying to Pablo. He is acting like a snotty child. His argument relies on the notion that we cannot make life outside the womb (e.g., “Do you think we can make life outside the womb?). This just in, we clone plants and sheep. I suppose these these are living to Pablo because they were created outside of the womb.

So now Pablo will argue that we cannot create human life outside the womb. IVF clearly scuttles that notion. So Pablo will contiunue to redefine “create”, “human”, “life”, etc. Sounds like Clinton equivocating the meanings of “the”, “is”, and “alone” to show he didn’t commit perjury.

He is acting like a child; treat him as one.

Yes, Pablo. You’re soooo intelligent. Now go out and play.

cmay on November 5, 2006 at 2:15 PM

Oh, Spider Dan, I do hope you stick around. I’m going to have fun showing you the ropes. :-)

Hey cmay, show me the sheep that’s been made outside a womb. Or a person. I’ll wait…. You can go outside and look, if you like. Bonus points if you can find a plant made inside a womb.

OK, I’m not really going to wait because you can’t do either. Nice try, though, and I will give you credit for at least identifying the argument.

Pablo on November 5, 2006 at 4:11 PM

Hey Prablow,

Speaking of ovaries: How is it that, thanks to the Left, since 1972, you fux are responsible for the extermination of some 47 million souls, and yet, thanks to the Left, to wit John F’n Kerry, the perception of our military forces in this world, is that they, instead, are the baby killers

Could you answer that one for me? Kos I’d really like to know…

Gee, I guess its a real shame you weren’t aborted, instead of the next Mozart, or the next Duke Ellington over there in the freezer, to provide the so-called cure for the many debilitating non-lethal, non-painful medical conditions afflicting celebrities.

Or to paraphrase Karen Mannheim, “keep yer hands, your suction tubes, your fertilized cell harvesters, ye scrapers, or whatever out of my vagina!

On MAD TV last night they managed to destroy, or should I say de-construct, you entire dishonest “scientific” slieght-of-hand Stem Cell (nee Cloning) argument, in just under 3 minutes, using childrens drawings, a childs voice- over, and some tinkly piano. I sure it shows up on U(r) Tubes, so we can can all rejoice in the the sad demise of your Great Deceiver faxed talking points.

Sophistry, ad hominem stocks are the only ones that seem to be suffering in this worst economy since the Great Depression. /sarcasm off. Surely some Maynerd Keynes Gummit Spending can rescue the burgeoning Fertilized Egg Farming System Industry from almost certin death. So it, as John Edwards has told us, will walk again.

Jen the Neocon on November 5, 2006 at 6:55 PM

This same ad is being run in eastern Virginia against Congresswoman Thelma Drake. The same actors, the same script. Only the name has been changed. This is about what you expect from that sleazeball Harold Ickes. George Bush’s greatest mistake was not putting all these Clintonistas in jail and throwing away the key.

OBX Pete on November 5, 2006 at 6:59 PM

In vitro Fertilization (IVF) is “creating life outside of the mother’s body. In vivo fertilization takes place inside a woman’s body. In vivo fertilization does not take place inside a woman’s womb. Fertilization normally takes place in a woman’s fallopian tube, not inside a woman’s womb.

The embryo which is the result of that IVF is alive. The embryo which is the result of In vivo fertilization is alive. They are both alive and they are both human beings.

The embryo from IVF is eventually implanted inside a woman’s womb. Nevertheless, the woman’s womb is required for the human being to mature to term.

Bottom line, the life was “created outside of the womb” via IVF, so, technically speaking, life can be created outside of the womb.

Furthermore, the materials and the life were already existing before the genetic material of the woman and the man are blended, so, if one wishes to split hairs, life is not really created in the lab or outside of the womb because life existed before any of us were conceived, and the genetic material, the sperm of the male and the oocyte of the female, already exist, were already created via gametogenesis before they met. So, humans cannot take credit for creating life out of nothing. They only artificially introduce the boy and girl to one another. Once they meet, life, nature, God does the rest.

Regarding reproduction, or creating life. There is sexual reproduction and there is asexual reproduction.

The “natural” method of reproduction, called sexual reproduction, takes place by the male ejaculating his sperm into the woman’s body. This sperm in turn meets her oocyt (ovum), and then a new life begins.

One of the main methods of asexual reproduction takes place inside the woman’s womb. This occurs during cell division and results in twinning.

As the new human organism, the new human embryonic zygote develops, her cells divide and multiply rapidly. During this division, if the cells separate, the separated cell can become a new human embryonic zygote, a new human being, a twin. This can occur up to, and even after fourteen days post fertilization (pf).

This is referred to as twinning, and, as I stated above, it occurs naturally inside mother’s womb.

Another way that asexual reproduction takes place is referred to as “Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer,” or SCNT. This involves removing a body cell (somatic cell) from the primary clone target, removing the nucleus from that somatic cell, and inserting the nucleus into an enucleated donor cell (a donor egg or cell which has had its nucleus removed). This results in the creation of a new human embryo, a new human being as well.

This is one of the cautions that many are sounding regarding the push for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research which can use cloning of cells in order to acquire the embryos required for “research.”

Cloning has met with a great deal of difficulty. Is has required hundreds of attempts with little to no successful results. Early Human Embryonic Stem Cells, having the ability to develop into another, new human being, also present a big problem for “researchers.” Although the NIH (National Institutes of Health), and other labs, research facilities, and advocates for HESCR claim that HESCR researches on Pluripotent Stem Cells, cells which have the ability to become virtually any of the 210 – 220 different types of cells which make up tissue in the human body, because these early embryonic cells can revert back and become a new human monozytogic embryo, these cells are not clearly pluripotent, but are totipotent.

Cloning also takes place on germ cells, and other sources. This was touching merely on SNCT.

This is a brief summary of some of the facts of Human Embryology, Human Embryonic Stem Cells, totipotent cells (which have the potential to become all cells and tissue in the body), and pluripotent cells (explained above), and cloning.

William

William2006 on November 5, 2006 at 7:43 PM

Pablo…

The only rope you’ll possibly show me is the one that holds your tattered britches around your swollen waistline.

The issue — in this thread — is the despicable attempt by Dummycrats to portray conservatives as heartless, unscientific simpletons, or worse. In the case of Michael J. Fox, the assertion a conservative would arrest and jail researchers is why good ol’ Marty McFly lost every shred of sympathy and credibility in this campaign. There are a million ways to go about presenting a cogent appeal – Fox and his Dummycrat handlers just ripped the tag right off the only one that is certain to fail.

What idiots like this pablo don’t ever seem to understand is that legitimate Americans don’t buy the arguments of celebrities just because they are celebrities. I love Tom Hanks, but I am not going to subscribe to his recent political views. He will continue to draw entertainment dollars from me if he keeps his political views to himself and makes good movies. His views on stem cell, abortion, the war, etc. do not interest me — he hasn’t called to query me on my views.

I am like Rush Limbaugh in certain ways. Damn it, I am just right about these things far more than I am wrong. I like that. Leaving liberals lying in a puddle of their tears and body fluids seems to make me a better person, a better American. No two ways about it. And, in this discussion, the liberals have it wrong — again.

Spider Dan on November 5, 2006 at 9:26 PM

Pablo,

The cloned sheep is called “Dolly.” Here’s a link on her death.

Second point:

Bonus points if you can find a plant made inside a womb.

You claimed that life is created in the womb. Your quote:

Do you think we can make life outside the womb?

Not mine. It’s up to you to demonstrate that all plants (and anything living) was created in a womb.

Where did you go to school?

cmay on November 5, 2006 at 10:04 PM

I would not argue that HESCR is abortion. But I would argue that both HESCR and abortion, is murder. The destruction of innocent human life.

Maxx on November 5, 2006 at 10:46 PM

Pablo, give it up. Quite simply, you are mistaken in absolutely every one of your arguments on this topic.

The federal government funds stem cell research. The federal government does NOT fund embryonic stem cell research, because it requires the destruction of a human life. The moment fertilization occurs between egg and sperm, life exists. Embryonic, fetal, you name it, whatever stage you prefer to name, it’s life. Oh, and it’s done outside of the womb regularly, which if you did any REAL research before spouting you’d know.

Embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. When conducted it must be funded privately. The marketplace rules. Researches can’t seem to get much funding for ESCR, because all of the research conducted to date using ESCs have produced NO promising, and numerous discouraging results. Because they cannot show even a positive potential for a valid medical use for ESCs yet, private investors won’t spend their money on it yet. That is why they scream and cry for government funding.

On the political front, the pro-abort groups can see the handwriting on the wall; states have already begun to restrict abortions. They need a new banner cause that will give them a way to keep abortion legal, and ESCs is it. If they win this battle, first it will be embryo-farming, next fetal farming. They will find new words to use that are more palatable than abortion, but it still amounts to killing a baby.

Sacrificing yourself that another may live is a noble deed. Sacrificing a stranger that another may live is despicable. Sacrificing the innocent unborn today so that perhaps, in a few decades, others may live longer, is beyond evil.

Freelancer on November 5, 2006 at 11:10 PM

I love you guys!
You made short (or rather long, actually) work of Dr. Pablo Frankenstein!
I feel compelled to point out that “my” last cussing rant was actually posted by my husband–he gets upset about these things!

Jen the Neocon on November 6, 2006 at 12:11 AM

Even if HESCR could guarantee each of us life eternal, its still morally repugnant to allow the taking of innocent human life for even that grand purpose. If offered to me, I would hope to have the moral strength to reject it, and accept death gracefully. Let’s forget this path offered by the “culture of death” and pursue adult stem cell research that shows great promise, and the opportunity to reap great health benefits, without getting innocent blood on our hands.

Maxx on November 6, 2006 at 12:29 AM

How is it that, thanks to the Left, since 1972, you fux are responsible for the extermination of some 47 million souls, and yet, thanks to the Left, to wit John F’n Kerry, the perception of our military forces in this world, is that they, instead, are the baby killers

Hey Jen, how long is it going to take for you to get it through your foot-thick skull that I’m not a leftist, nor am I pro-abortion.

Gee, I guess its a real shame you weren’t aborted, instead of the next Mozart, or the next Duke Ellington over there in the freezer, to provide the so-called cure for the many debilitating non-lethal, non-painful medical conditions afflicting celebrities.

It’s a shame you weren’t left in the freezer. You were in a freezer, right?

Or to paraphrase Karen Mannheim, “keep yer hands, your suction tubes, your fertilized cell harvesters, ye scrapers, or whatever out of my vagina!

Not with a 30 foot pole, nor Rush Limbaugh’s d*ck. I don’t screw morons, as a rule.

Pablo on November 6, 2006 at 7:21 AM

The embryo from IVF is eventually implanted inside a woman’s womb. Nevertheless, the woman’s womb is required for the human being to mature to term.

Or, to ever become a human being. The first of you geniuses to demonstrate when a human being has come into existence outside of that scenario wins a cookie.

An acorn is not an oak tree, kids.

Spider Dan,

What idiots like this pablo don’t ever seem to understand is that legitimate Americans don’t buy the arguments of celebrities just because they are celebrities.

Please point out what I’ve said to give you that bone stupid idea, Dan. Good luck…

Pablo on November 6, 2006 at 7:25 AM

The embryo which is the result of that IVF is alive. The embryo which is the result of In vivo fertilization is alive. They are both alive and they are both human beings.

William, when did the first petrie dish give birth?

cmay,from the link (and thanks for opening that door and walking right in…)

Dolly became the first mammal clone when she was born on 5 July 1996.

What was she BORN to cmay? A petrie dish? A test tube? A freezer? Noooooo….Dolly was born to a FEMALE. Dolly came to be a sheep in a uterus.

That is the only way it works, ever. There is no other way of creating human or any other mammal life, and we are not capable of replicating that process. It’s His job, we are not capable of it and the suggestion that we are is HUBRIS.

You are not that powerful and neither are scientists. The difference between you and them is that scientists, being considerably more intelligent people that the dittoheads populating HA these days, realize this.

Meanwhile, what percentage of IVF embryos ever come to fruition? Do any of you rocket scientists know?

Pablo on November 6, 2006 at 7:32 AM

I feel compelled to point out that “my” last cussing rant was actually posted by my husband–he gets upset about these things!

Ah, so you didn’t marry up, I see. Pity. You could use the help.

Pablo on November 6, 2006 at 7:34 AM

The moment fertilization occurs between egg and sperm, life exists. Embryonic, fetal, you name it, whatever stage you prefer to name, it’s life.

No, it’s possible potential. Far more often than not, it is not a person and never will be one. What leads you to believe that it’s a life?

Oh, and it’s done outside of the womb regularly, which if you did any REAL research before spouting you’d know.

Please show me the first person man has created outside of the womb. It can’t be done.

Embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. When conducted it must be funded privately.

You’re wrong, Freelancer. Bush authorized the first federal ESC funding in 2001.

Researches can’t seem to get much funding for ESCR, because all of the research conducted to date using ESCs have produced NO promising, and numerous discouraging results.

Wrong again. Geron is working with private funds, but 6 of the nine lines they’re using are those that are authorized for federal funding. I linked this above, which is very promising. You’ve really got to read the debate if you’ve going to jump in.

Because they cannot show even a positive potential for a valid medical use for ESCs yet, private investors won’t spend their money on it yet.

Again, that’s simply false. Geron is one example, Advanced Cell Technology is another.

On the political front, the pro-abort groups can see the handwriting on the wall; states have already begun to restrict abortions. They need a new banner cause that will give them a way to keep abortion legal, and ESCs is it. If they win this battle, first it will be embryo-farming, next fetal farming.

Please draw the lines here, because I don’t see them. How does ESC research affect abortions, or vice versa? ESC is not about sluts killing children who will inconvenience them. The only possible connection is rhetorical, and I’m not impressed with rhetoric. Most people aren’t.

Sacrificing yourself that another may live is a noble deed. Sacrificing a stranger that another may live is despicable. Sacrificing the innocent unborn today so that perhaps, in a few decades, others may live longer, is beyond evil.

Freezing them indefinitely and/or throwing them in an incinerator is what then? How is discarding an unwanted embryo more moral than using it to benefit sick people? Why is the incinerator preferable to a centrifuge?

Pablo on November 6, 2006 at 8:06 AM

The embryo from IVF is eventually implanted inside a woman’s womb. Nevertheless, the woman’s womb is required for the human being to mature to term.
Or, to ever become a human being. The first of you geniuses to demonstrate when a human being has come into existence outside of that scenario wins a cookie.

An acorn is not an oak tree, kids. — Pablo on November 6, 2006 at 7:25 AM

Pablo,

I already addressed this issue above.

At the time of conception-fertilization the new human being’s life does begin. That is a scientific fact.

Birth is NOT the beginning of the new person’s life. Birth is the beginning of their life outside of the womb.

You are talking acorns and oak trees now. That is a different dog you are bringing up.

An acorn and an oak tree are different ends of the spectrum of the life of the oak tree. The difference is that the oak tree is a mature member of the same kind as the acorn. The tree begins as an acorn. The tree grows and matures into a mature tree from its beginning as an acorn, and passes through all stages in between.

The newly conceived human being is the same person as the adult. The difference is, like the oak tree, the new person is tiny and immature, while the adult is more mature.

Same person, different stages of her life.

Do you understand now?

Regarding your claim that life does not begin outside of the womb, I already explained the scientific facts in my post above.

The life of the new human being does not begin in a womb, save in the case of asexual reproduction, or twinning, which can take place inside the womb up to, and even after 14 days post fertilization.

In sexual reproduction, in vivo, the life of the human being begins in the fallopian tube via conception-fertilization, where the sperm of the male, meets and fertilizes the oocyte of the female.

The new life can also begin artificially via In vitro fertilization. This takes place outside of the woman’s body. After conception-fertilization the embryo is implanted inside mother’s body, who then carries baby to term.

“Life” or a living person also begins outside of the womb through asexual reproduction. Examples of asexual reproduction, which does not involve sexual intercourse, are Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, and other forms of cloning.

The fact that IVF babies do survive outside of mother’s womb for extended periods of time is something which abortion advocates should take note of. It lays to rest their concept that there is some kind of viability, and that until the baby can survive outside of mother’s womb, they should be allowed to legally kill baby.

In IVF conceptions, baby can survive outside of the womb for long periods of time. Viability is a dishonest and unfair bench mark. Viability is more a matter of technology than it is a matter of natural processes.

In 1985 Kendra King of Florida was born at 21 weeks gestation, which is quite early, and survived. She is a healthy individual of 21 years of age now. Since that time babies have been born at earlier ages of gestation of post fertilization, as early as 20 weeks, and possibly 19 weeks gestation.

Nevertheless, this number has lowered not because the babies are more able to survive outside of the womb, but because the technology has enabled them to survive because the technology helps them to survive. They belong in the womb until later.

Viability or no viability, they are human beings nonetheless. We would not expect a person who has been badly injured to go out and walk seven miles to their home while their broken arm, and their burned skin is not yet healed, yet people unfairly expect baby to survive before she has matured enough to make the transition from inside mother’s womb to the outside world.

Even after she is born, she is dependent on mature members of the human race to care for her, or, as in the case of some fictional characters, such as Tarzan, Mogely from Jungle Book, and others, they are raised by animals – wolves, chimpanzees, gorillas, bears, black leopards, and so on.

Birth is not the beginning of the new human being’s life. Conception-fertilization is the beginning of the new human being’s life. Birth is the beginning of life outside of the womb.

Nevertheless, people do not create life. Sexual union does not create life. Life exists before conception-fertilization, and continues to exist after a single creature, be they a human being, a frog, or a living tree, die.

Life is that which animates us, gives us awareness, breath, the works. When we say “When does a human being’s life begin,” we are referring to when a new person’s life begins. Life has already been taking place before we were here and continues after we are no longer here.

William

William2006 on November 6, 2006 at 1:05 PM

Addendum:

In the post contribution above, pleas note that the first paragraph was by me, quoted by Pablo.

The second paragraph was by Pablo.

The embryo from IVF is eventually implanted inside a woman’s womb. Nevertheless, the woman’s womb is required for the human being to mature to term. — William
Or, to ever become a human being. The first of you geniuses to demonstrate when a human being has come into existence outside of that scenario wins a cookie.

An acorn is not an oak tree, kids. — Pablo on November 6, 2006 at 7:25 AM

The comment to this statement is addressed above by me — William2006 on November 6, 2006 at 1:05 PM

Thank you.

William

William2006 on November 6, 2006 at 1:11 PM

The moment fertilization occurs between egg and sperm, life exists. Embryonic, fetal, you name it, whatever stage you prefer to name, it’s life. — Freelancer on November 5, 2006 at 11:10 PM

Pablo,

Will you please credit the person you are quoting? We don’t know who made the statement you quote.

I searched and found that the person you quoted is Freelancer on November 5, 2006, at 11:10 PM.

Freelancer is correct. At conception-fertilization the new human being’s life begins. They are a human being from that time until they die, whenever that occurs.

This life of the new person is a continuum. It begins at conception-fertilization. All human beings are tiny when they first begin. You cannot see them, but they are there. With a microscope you can see them. You can also see them alive, function, their cells dividing, they are developing.

Within three short weeks post fertilization (pf), while baby is living inside mother’s womb, baby’s heart beat is detectable. Within six weeks, baby’s brainwaves are detectable. By the end of eight weeks, the end of the embryonic stage, baby has all her organs and must merely continue to mature to term.

The tiny human embryo in IVF babies is every bit alive and human as the babies conceived in vivo. Freezing them does not kill them, otherwise they would not continue to grow at implantation.

However, in vivo babies do not have in interrupted pathway to development as in vitro babies. They get on with traveling to the womb, implanting, and growing.

No, it’s possible potential. Far more often than not, it is not a person and never will be one. What leads you to believe that it’s a life? — Pablo on November 6, 2006 at 8:06 AM

In summation, yes, the newly conceived human being, the new human embryonic zygote, whether conceived in vitro or in vivo, is a full, complete member of the human race, albeit an immature member with a lot of development, or growing, to do.

You wouldn’t say that an infant is not a human being, but you can say that an infant is not an adult. A baby girl is a female, but she is not a woman. If you kill her, the baby girl will never grow to be an adult woman, her development is not complete in relation to the adult women, who has breasts, and the mature genitals with which she can give birth. Baby girls do not have mature breasts and they cannot yet give birth. They are different from mature females, or woman, but they are every bit as human as adult females.

To claim that she is not human because she has not achieved adulthood, or because she has not been born yet, is not even a toddler yet, would be inaccurate. The same holds for the newly conceived human being. They are exactly at the stage they are supposed to be at that point, so early in their new life. In order to deny the human personhood of the little baby girl you would have to strain at your definition of human and claim something absurd, such as “She does not have fully developed breasts, she cannot become pregnant, she cannot speak English, or Spanish, or Hindi, or Chinese” and so forth. She cannot drive a car, and has not yet earned her high school diploma.

Oops! She cannot be a human being – yet!

She is a person from the moment she is conceived onward. The baby conceived in vitro must be implanted into mother’s womb in order to continue to develop like her in vivo conceived peers, but she is human nonetheless.

William

William2006 on November 6, 2006 at 1:43 PM

At the time of conception-fertilization the new human being’s life does begin. That is a scientific fact.

Great. Let’s see the scientific proof. Better yet, let’s see one that lives without human intervention/manipulation.

Birth is NOT the beginning of the new person’s life. Birth is the beginning of their life outside of the womb.

Right. Life begins in the womb.

The tree begins as an acorn. The tree grows and matures into a mature tree from its beginning as an acorn, and passes through all stages in between.

Except that for when it doesn’t. The vast majority of acorns have no future as an oak tree.

In IVF conceptions, baby can survive outside of the womb for long periods of time

Really? How long? And freezer time doesn’t count.

In 1985 Kendra King of Florida was born at 21 weeks gestation, which is quite early, and survived.

What does this have to do with man made embryos in petrie dishes? She is alive due to the grace of God, and she began her life in the womb.

Birth is the beginning of life outside of the womb.

So then cells in a petrie dish aren’t life, having not been born nor ever in the womb.

Life is that which animates us, gives us awareness, breath, the works.

None of which applies to a man made embryo in a test tube in a freezer. No animation, no awareness, no breath, no works.

The same holds for the newly conceived human being. They are exactly at the stage they are supposed to be at that point, so early in their new life.

In a cyronic freezer? I think not. In a womb, yes. But we’re not talking about in the womb.

n summation, yes, the newly conceived human being, the new human embryonic zygote, whether conceived in vitro or in vivo, is a full, complete member of the human race…

So, you think man creates human life then? What is your proof of this? When has it ever been done outside of His factory, the mother?

Pablo on November 6, 2006 at 2:00 PM

I have to repost this becuase I failed to close the quote at the proper place, thus leaving the previous post potentially difficult to follow.

William

The moment fertilization occurs between egg and sperm, life exists. Embryonic, fetal, you name it, whatever stage you prefer to name, it’s life. — Freelancer on November 5, 2006 at 11:10 PMNo, it’s possible potential. Far more often than not, it is not a person and never will be one. What leads you to believe that it’s a life? — Pablo on November 6, 2006 at 8:06 AM

Pablo,

Will you please credit the person you are quoting? We don’t know who made the statement you quote.

I searched and found that the person you quoted is Freelancer on November 5, 2006, at 11:10 PM.

Freelancer is correct. At conception-fertilization the new human being’s life begins. They are a human being from that time until they die.

This life of the new person is a continuum. It begins at conception-fertilization. All human beings are tiny when they first begin. You cannot see them, but they are there. With a microscope you can see them. You can also see them alive, function, their cells dividing, they are developing.

Within three short weeks post fertilization (pf), while baby is living inside mother’s womb, baby’s heart beat is detectable. Within six weeks, baby’s brainwaves are detectable. By the end of eight weeks, the end of the embryonic stage, baby has all her organs and must merely continue to mature to term.

The tiny human embryo in IVF babies is every bit alive and human as the babies conceived in vivo. Freezing them does not kill them, otherwise they would not continue to grow at implantation.

However, in vivo babies do not have in interrupted pathway to development as in vitro babies. In vivo babies get on with traveling to the womb, implanting, and growing. In vitro babies are implanted artificially, then get on with the rest of their development.

In summation, yes, the newly conceived human being, the new human embryonic zygote, whether conceived in vitro or in vivo, is a full, complete member of the human race, albeit an immature member with a lot of development, or growing, to do.

You wouldn’t say that an infant is not a human being, but you can say that an infant is not an adult. A baby girl is a female, but she is not a woman. If you kill her, the baby girl will never grow to be an adult woman, her development is not complete in relation to the adult women, who has breasts, and the mature genitals with which she can give birth. Baby girls do not have mature breasts and they cannot yet give birth. They are different from mature females, or woman, but they are every bit as human as adult females.

To claim that she is not human because she has not achieved adulthood, or because she has not been born yet, is not even a toddler yet, or because she has not given birth, would be inaccurate. The same holds for the newly conceived human being. They are exactly at the stage they are supposed to be at that point, so early in their new life. In order to deny the human personhood of the little baby girl you would have to strain at your definition of human and claim something absurd, such as “She does not have fully developed breasts, she cannot become pregnant, she cannot speak English, or Spanish, or Hindi, or Chinese” and so forth. She cannot drive a car, and has not yet earned her high school diploma.

Oops! She cannot be a human being – yet!

She is a person from the moment she is conceived onward. The baby conceived in vitro must be implanted into mother’s womb in order to continue to develop like her in vivo conceived peers, but she is human nonetheless.

William

William2006 on November 6, 2006 at 2:08 PM

william,

The tiny human embryo in IVF babies is every bit alive and human as the babies conceived in vivo. Freezing them does not kill them, otherwise they would not continue to grow at implantation.

If they were every bit as alive as a baby conceived in vivo, freezing would kill them. As we know, it does not. Life cannot be put into storage.

The baby conceived in vitro must be implanted into mother’s womb in order to continue to develop like her in vivo conceived peers, but she is human nonetheless.

You realize that the odds are against successful IVF embryo implantation, don’t you? More often than not, it does not work, and no child has been conceived, nor given life, nor born. The man made embryonic product fails to survive in the majority of cases.

Pablo on November 6, 2006 at 2:23 PM

Pablo,

You are attempting to change the subject while at the same time ignoring the facts.

Fact 1: At the time of conception-fertilization a human being’s life begins. This is true in both In Vitro fertilization and in viv fertilzation. It is a scientific fact.

Fact 2: Regardless how long the new human being lives, during the time they are alive, they are a human being.

Also, regarding freezing embryos. That is man’s idea. I disagree with it. I also do not support IVF. If people are going to engage in fertility clinic services they should be reponsible for their offspring and protect them, not abandin them or let them die.

Just because it is being done, does not make it right.

Nevertheless, if they were dead, they would not continue to develop once they were thawed and implanted inside mother’s womb.

Now we see ambitious individuals using human embryos as lab rats “for the greater good,” and in order to make it less ethically repugnant, they make up their own “science” in order to claim that they are not really destroying embryos, they are merely experimenting on cells which come from embryos.

Without a shred of evidence to support the claim we are told that this is the “Best hope for mankind” and that this research on human embryos “holds great promise.”

It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that the cells come from embryos and that the embryos are destroyed in the process in order to get the embryonic cells. That is the same as taking your liver, your blood, your heart, chopping you up, and claiming that they are not really working on a human being, they are working on human organs which came from a human being.

You are dead, but they have your organs, but it’s okay, they are not working on YOUR body, they are merely working on organs, blood, etc,. that they took from your body, even though they you were killed in the process.

It’s all A okay. It’s all for the greater good.

William

William2006 on November 6, 2006 at 3:08 PM

No, William, you’re trying to ignore what doesn’t fit your view. Let’s take your facts, again:

At the time of conception-fertilization a human being’s life begins. This is true in both In Vitro fertilization and in viv fertilzation. It is a scientific fact.

Great. Show me the scientific proof. If you’re right, this should be easy.

Fact 2: Regardless how long the new human being lives, during the time they are alive, they are a human being.

That’s obvious. An oak tree, during the time it is alive, is an oak tree. But an acorn is not an oak tree.

Now we see ambitious individuals using human embryos as lab rats “for the greater good,” and in order to make it less ethically repugnant, they make up their own “science” in order to claim that they are not really destroying embryos, they are merely experimenting on cells which come from embryos.

Absoultely false, and only a fool would believe it. they know they’re destroying embryos for the source cells. That’s why they call it Embryonic Stem Cell research. They know they’re taking man made embryos which have been donated to research and that they (up until now – this may have changed) destroy them to extract stem cells. They also know that those cells then replicate indefinitely.

These “ambitious individuals” are medical doctors searching for cures.

Pablo on November 6, 2006 at 4:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2