POS judge rules against the fed. funding for stem cell research...

[R13]

So embryos aren't really people yet but they are informed that they are going to be killed for their stem cells and they are ok with it???

The mother, but I'm hoping you already knew what I was talking about, or maybe you're that oblivious.

OK now, I know what christians feel is the beginning of life, but, according to the courts of this country, just what do they establish as the beginning of life? I really don't know, just curious and if the judge upheld the ban according to the law of the land, then what is the problem? If the judge didn't, then that is what appeals are for.

There isn't any declared/official ruling about when life begins really, some believe conception, some after the first trimester, some after it's viable outside the womb(that's what I myself lean towards) and some is actual birth...none have been declared really. Roe V. Wade basically said the state doesn't have a leg to stand on early on(first trimester) and can't restrict anything, but in the second they have some say and esp. the third. Since we're talking about embryo's, the gov. obviously shouldn't have any say in it.

But considering it only applies to embryo's that would otherwise be thrown out, I don't see the problem, it's the most common sense thing out there and a lot people object it? Puzzles me.

[TheBeast]

But considering it only applies to embryo's that would otherwise be thrown out, I don't see the problem, it's the most common sense thing out there and a lot people object it? Puzzles me.

Therein lies the problem, these aren't just embryo's that are being thrown away they are aborted children. It really would boil down to your view of human life and how precious it is. Anyone that really values life would feel the same that life begins at conception or when the heartbeat develops, which is anywhere from 3-8 weeks.

I would never wish on anyone what my wife and I went through with the loss of our child to a miscarriage. But when you see that embryo and hear/see the heartbeat on the monitor there is no better feeling in the world. Anyone that can experience that and then say, "ahh we don't want that thing just get rid of it" that person has no soul and has no right to be considered a part of civilized society.

[CoeburnCane]

I would never wish on anyone what my wife and I went through with the loss of our child to a miscarriage. But when you see that embryo and hear/see the heartbeat on the monitor there is no better feeling in the world. Anyone that can experience that and then say, "ahh we don't want that thing just get rid of it" that person has no soul and has no right to be considered a part of civilized society.

All of this I can't see first-hand as it's never happened to me and my wife as it did with you and yours, but I know when I've heard about this happening to other friends of mine how heartbreaking it can be. I can definitely empathize with the feelings and emotions that come with such a tragedy.

The last part of what you're saying I'm somewhat in agreement with, but I have qualms in cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother's life, and the estimated mortality of the child given birth defects/disease in the womb.

In terms of those cases, I think it should definitely be up to the mother as to whether or not she wants to abort the child. Rape/incest victims are all emotionally and psychologically scarred by the events that brought the pregnancy to them, and the results of those things (the pregnancy itself) should be put in the mother's hands and let her make the decision on if she wants to carry that reminder w/her. Some do, some don't...but the decision should be there.

In the case of the mother's health, if she was healthy enough to get pregnant but due to complications she is inable to carry the child to full term--abortion should at least be a medical option on the table. There have been stories I've heard where the mother died trying to carry the child to full term, and the baby has died as well once the mother has--so that's a sad situation no matter how you cut it. If some want to say the child at that stage is a "life", then you're risking not only it's life, but the mother's as well. If sanctity of life is the argument, then why risk 2 lives in that situation? Some will choose to die and risk their child dying as well for the hope of giving them life, others will choose to live and possibly adopt children that need a mother already, or may even give pregnancy another try and hope for no complications. But--at least the choice is legally there currently.

In the case of birth defect/disease, some people are at high risk genetically to give birth to a child with a certain defect/disease, and a lot of them with little treatment and/or no cure available. So, what is humane? What is respectful to the sanctity of life argument? Do you give the child life only to cripple it with this defect/disease and have a VERY low quality of life, or do you abort the child and avoid giving it a life that will be filled with love--but also with pain & suffering due to this defect/disease? Once again--some will choose to give birth and try to do the best they can, others will choose to abort and in their viewpoint be merciful.

I guess my point is, I'm pro-life, but I'm also rational and realize every situation is different...so I guess that makes me pro-choice in the end. The option needs to be there in every situation b/c each one is different. I'm very much against abortion as a method of birth control b/c that's just wrong and another part of our misguided society that doesn't care about anything except themselves.

In my opinion, miscarriage is not abortion, it's biology. It happens to couples everyday. It's one of those things that doctors can't 100% predict. In cases where miscarriage happens due to abuse, I can see the comparison moreso there. To compare the two in my eyes w/o the abuse variable isn't exactly congruent (no offense).

[1inStripes]

I guess my point is, I'm pro-life, but I'm also rational and realize every situation is different...so I guess that makes me pro-choice in the end. The option needs to be there in every situation b/c each one is different. I'm very much against abortion as a method of birth control b/c that's just wrong and another part of our misguided society that doesn't care about anything except themselves.

I really think a large majority who are against abortion are against it for the main reason you are above. Its a sad endictment of our society.

My wife and I went through the same thing Beast and his misses did just months apart. We lost a child to miscarriage and then conceived against right around the same time Beast and his wife did. It just plain sucks, and is something I don't wish on any expecting parents.

[R13]

Therein lies the problem, these aren't just embryo's that are being thrown away they are aborted children. It really would boil down to your view of human life and how precious it is. Anyone that really values life would feel the same that life begins at conception or when the heartbeat develops, which is anywhere from 3-8 weeks.

Says you. Several embryo's have to be made, the couple can use the rest(which isn't typical like an octomom), discard them or donate them to save lives and cure diseases - only one of those choices make sense. That argument has and can be used against birth control, you against that too?

And you're talking to someone that went through the same thing, like millions of people. We're not talking abortion though, you changed this to some abortion debate, when it's not. This is embryo's that would be trashed, being used to cure diseases and save lives, a very simple debate for a person with common sense.

[R13]

(CNN) -- An appeals court has lifted an injunction imposed by a federal judge, thereby allowing federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research to continue while the Obama administration appeals the judge's original ruling against use of public funds in such research.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed Tuesday to stay the injunction and allow the National Institutes of Health to continue research.

"President Obama made expansion of stem cell research and the pursuit of groundbreaking treatments and cures a top priority when he took office," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement. "We're heartened that the court will allow NIH and their grantees to continue moving forward while the appeal is resolved."

District Court Judge Royce Lamberth earlier this month said he would not agree to delay his injunction while the case was appealed.

"Defendants [the government] are incorrect about much of their 'parade of horribles' that will supposedly result from this Court's preliminary injunction," Lamberth wrote in his court order in early September.

The "horribles" he referred to are an extensive list of research projects outlined by the National Institutes of Health that would have to be shelved if a stay were not granted.

"Congress has mandated that the public interest is served by preventing taxpayer funding of research that entails the destruction of human embryos," Lamberth said.

"In this court's view a stay would flout the will of Congress as this court understands what Congress has enacted. ... Congress remains perfectly free to amend or revise the statute. This Court is not free to do so," Lamberth said.

Lamberth's ruling, which stunned the administration, prevented any further medical research that involves the use of taxpayer dollars to fund projects requiring the destruction of embryos. The appeals court ruling Tuesday allows research to continue.

The litigation resulted from a lawsuit against the National Health Institute filed by researchers opposed to use of embryonic stem cells, a group that seeks adoptive parents for human embryos created through in vitro fertilization, the nonprofit Christian Medical Association and others.

When the injunction was first issued by Lamberth in August, Ron Stoddart, executive director of Nightlight Christian Adoptions -- one of the groups that filed the lawsuit -- said he supported adult stem cell research that doesn't require destroying embryos.

"Frequently people will say why are you opposed to stem cell research and of course our answer is, 'We're not,' " Stoddart said. "We're opposed to the destruction of the embryos to get embryo stem cells."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/28/ste...ex.html?hpt=T2