The President, of course.
Particularly given the fact he lied through his teeth about his program's being restricted to the 60 stem cell lines, I see no reason that "government funding" or a killed-by date of August, 2001 should be the bright line of Circumstance which determines whether or not "humanitarian" use of embryos that would have been tossed in the garbage is legitimate or not.
When your "pro-life" President, even, can "pray" to his Favorite Philosopher that he's done the right thing by etching in stone with government funds the Fact that all men are no longer created equal ...
And when your "pro-life" President's decision obviates the need for the NIH to even proffer human experimentation protocols for review (the President's decision having nailed open a whole new door of human Non-Personhood, according to the Congressional Register) ...
It seems hypocritical in the extreme to balk at California's making good on its promise to become the world's prime supplier of Potential People suitable for all manner of human experimentation so long as -- so far as anyone knows -- they're destroyed by "implantation" age.
You all lost this fight when you rationalized the President's decision. Perhaps if you really cared, you'd understand that you lost the fight back in 1970 when -- among other extremely curious findings with regard to the environment, population control and depopulation -- the GOP discovered a "right" to predetermine the sex of one's children.
The truth is out there. Staring you in the face. If you care to look.
And if there is a "right" to predetermine the sex of one's children, that right surely is "universal" and holds regardless the Means others may choose to invoke that right for themselves.
You see the thinking at work here?
This is your GOP Brain at work. PROVE TO ME THAT ANYTHING HAS CHANGED.
And resist the urge to quote me campaign literature or your favorite bumper sticker. I've provided facts available to any American who wishes to read the Congressional Register or declassified National Defense Memoranda. I expect something with the same weight.
(And don't bother with cites of "Parental Consent" legislation or other circus-circus bits of sounds and fury SIGNIFYING NOTHING save for in the state of Utah, perhaps.)
Rotsa ruck.
Death tolls have been reduced in every country to negligible rates from epidemics and diseases such as malaria, measles, smallpox, cholera, polio and tuberculosis; major advances have been made against heart disease and cancer, artificial organs can now prolong life.
Since we accept these intrusions into nature's control of population as morally justified, are we not unwise to consider birth control with equal moral justificiation?
If we continue to support government activities to reduce disease and improve health in order to prolong life under the auspices of what is good for society, then should we not consider birth control as a government activity for similar reasons?
In the Task Force report on "Federal Government Family Planning Program" it was recommended that Congress increase appropriations for contraceptive research in the amount of $380,000,000.00 over the next five years.
In conjunction with this research, the Task Force now feels research in the methodologies of pre-determining sex before insemination must be considered and pursued.
For birth limitation and regulation to be an honest free choice goal of Americans to undertake, pre-determination of the sex of children and failsafe contraception must be available to everyone.
The Task Force believes that much more knowledge is needed by the public in general about fertility control, contraception techniques and sex determination, as well as the social and material consequences resulting from increase population, in order that the broadest number of options are available to everyone in making personal decisions that affect the use of natural resources, family size and ultimately our environment.
Certainly it is, but not in any of your posts.
Particularly given the fact he lied through his teeth about his program's being restricted to the 60 stem cell lines,
Sure. I mean, he only signed an executive order, it's not as if he really meant it. Must be lying. And the unlimited number of stem cells he's letting the researchers have must be the reason they're satisfied with his decision. And you sure are quick to call him a liar. Evidence?
When your "pro-life" President,
Yep, he's no pro-lifer, which is why Jill Stanek wrote this about this Planned Parenthood document.
You all lost this fight when you rationalized the President's decision.
That would be a great point if I remembered doing that. It would also be a great point if I remembered the pro-life movement in this country (or even at FR) giving up the fight against embryonic stem cell research. And boy, the Prez sure helped those stem cell researchers a lot, which is why they're busy 24/7 whining that they can't do research with the lines he let them have. And if we've already lost, why are you still fighting? Just so you can continue to feel morally superior to 99% of the other pro-lifers?
Perhaps if you really cared, you'd understand that you lost the fight back in 1970 when -- among other extremely curious findings with regard to the environment, population control and depopulation -- the GOP discovered a "right" to predetermine the sex of one's children.
Um...source? And can you find it in the GOP platform today? I mean, heck, why don't you bring up the anti-Goldwater "daisy" ad while you're at it, so you can prove we all want to nuke the Middle East?
This President gives the board of Planned Parenthood nightmares, and you know it. Saying he's not pro-life is like saying the Klan isn't racist. It's like saying Bill Clinton's a good husband because he didn't cheat on Hillary for a couple of weeks after his bypass surgery. Get a grip.