The Democrat Utopia

BigRedBuster said:
 This is possibly one of the most confusing posts possible.  You talked in a circle in one post.

You clearly don't understand my thought process either.

You are saying society values a person for various reasons and that's why they get paid more.  Then, you say society values rich people more.

Which is the chicken and which is the egg?

And, to the lawyer/trash man example being used above.  There are some really generalized stereotypes going on there that don't always apply.  I know lawyers that, honestly, hate being out socially and talking about being a lawyer and having random people know that's what they do.  I know doctors the same way.  I also don't see why a trash man can't walk into a restaurant or bar and get treated well.  
Click to expand...






The difference between us in this conversation is I’m disagreeing with things you’re saying and arguing with them. You’re reading what I’m saying, misinterpreting it, then disagreeing with the misinterpretation. For example, accusing me of personally valueing people based on their $ and accusing me of wanting everyone to get paid the same amount. Never did I say or imply either of those things. 

If you want a summary of how I feel you could read the previous post I made.

I don’t think what I’m saying is circular. I think both are true. In the post you’re quoting I’m tying in jobs because they’re how people make the $. When it comes to providing something, society values someone based on how much $ they have.

As far as jobs, some are and should be valued more than others but there are many, many examples where the pay does not reflect a person’s contribution to society.

Society values people with more $ regardless of how much they actually contribute to society (i.e. how they earned that $). In many cases we’re getting it right. In others we’re not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
10 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

This is why I cannot vote for a ardent pro-choice, pro-abortion candidate of which the Dem party has basically become nothing but. 

This is beyond morbid to morally corrupt.  While the article notes the 'scientific benefits' of using aborted fetuses for research, it notes

the ethical dilemma as well.  When 'big science/academia/research, big pharma, big business' is involved, and this is big business,  then

I wonder how much consideration is given to the health and welfare of the mother.  We already know what happens to the developing baby.

The Dems are not opposed to big business when it supports their pet cause. 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8367760/aborted-baby-body-parts-sewn-mice-experiments-us-labs/

Related - A new movie about 'the industry'.  Based on the true story of Abby Johnson - former Planned Parenthood clinic director

Click to expand...






TGH, I’m willing to look this up when I get home, but I have to ask, do you know what The Sun is? It’s UK’s version of National Enquirer. 

 
Yes, I know the Sun is 'one of those papers'.   Note they give the other side of the story also - from the researchers' perspective.   If it is true it doesn't matter who reports it does it  as long as it is reported representative of the facts and perspective of both sides.  - abortion favoring big papers like NYT, W Post, etc sure won't write a negative story about it. 

Other sources.   I would think Scientific America would be a valid source. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-fetal-tissue-research/

Every month, Lishan Su receives a small test tube on ice from a company in California. In it is a piece of liver from a human fetus aborted at between 14 and 19 weeks of pregnancy.

Su and his staff at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill carefully grind the liver, centrifuge it and then extract and purify liver- and blood-forming stem cells. They inject the cells into the livers of newborn mice, and allow those mice to mature. The resulting animals are the only ‘humanized’ mice with both functioning human liver and immune cells and, for Su, they are invaluable in his work on hepatitis B and C, allowing him to probe how the viruses evade the human immune system and cause chronic liver diseases.

“Using fetal tissue is not an easy choice, but so far there is no better choice,” says Su, who has tried, and failed, to make a humanized mouse with other techniques. “Many, many biomedical researchers depend on fetal tissue research to really save human lives,” he says. “And I think many of them feel the same way.”
Click to expand...






NYT did a story on the hold on govt funding for such research

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/health/f

Should the government pay for medical research that uses tissue from aborted fetuses? This debate, ever smoldering, has erupted again, pitting anti-abortion forces in the Trump administration against scientists who say the tissue is essential for studies that benefit millions of patients.

In a letter last week that read like a shot across the bow, the National Institutes of Health warned the University California, San Francisco, that its $2 million contract for research involving the tissue, previously renewed for a year at a time, would be extended for only 90 days and might then be canceled.

University scientists had been using fetal tissue to create so-called humanized mice, which can then be used to test drugs and vaccines. The university has played a key role in testing antiviral drugs to treat H.I.V. infection. And researchers say that the mice, which essentially have a complete human immune system, are indispensable.
Click to expand...



 
Moiraine said:
TGH, I’m willing to look this up when I get home, but I have to ask, do you know what The Sun is? It’s UK’s version of National Enquirer. 
Click to expand...
@TGHusker, I searched the internet and only the usual conservative propaganda outlets are reporting this, and they're simply copy-and-paste versions of the same story, which is usually a strong sign this is a hoax. But I haven't seen a fact-check yet.

 
RedDenver said:
@TGHusker, I searched the internet and only the usual conservative propaganda outlets are reporting this, and they're simply copy-and-paste versions of the same story, which is usually a strong sign this is a hoax. But I haven't seen a fact-check yet.
Click to expand...
See the Scientific American link I provided in my 2nd post.

 
TGHusker said:
Yes, I know the Sun is 'one of those papers'.   Note they give the other side of the story also - from the researchers' perspective.   If it is true it doesn't matter who reports it does it  as long as it is reported representative of the facts and perspective of both sides.  - abortion favoring big papers like NYT, W Post, etc sure won't write a negative story about it. 

Other sources.   I would think Scientific America would be a valid source. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-fetal-tissue-research/

NYT did a story on the hold on govt funding for such research

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/health/f
Click to expand...
Note that these aren't all the same as "grafting human tissue onto mice" as claimed in the conservative outlets. They're injecting human tissue into mice to make them a better match to human biology for lab testing, which reduces the risk of human trials.

If you're upset that fetal tissue is used, then you should be equally upset that human bodies and tissues are used for medical research after people die. This is absolutely no different. And that's if you consider the fetus a person, if you don't think the fetus was a person, then it's even less than that - more like using a removed liver, kidney, mole, etc.

 
Ulty said:
I can't comment about the veracity of the article you posted, but regarding the first line of your post: I am a registered Democrat, and know many, many other Democrats. I don't know a single person who is pro-abortion.
Click to expand...
I think if one uses the term pro-choice you become pro-abortion by default in order to carry out the desired goal - woman's choice to decide what to do wt the baby in the womb.   - pro-choice is a softer way of saying it.  Those on the other side will say pro-life people are 'anti-choice'.    In saying this I don't pretend to say there aren't real decisions to be made (choices) when it comes to the health of the mother.  But when abortion is used as a 'birth control' process, capitalized on by big research (big academia) and big business (planned  parenthood for one) I can't help but think that the welfare of the mother becomes secondary even more so the life of the baby in the womb. 

 
fe·tus

Dictionary result for fetus


/ˈfēdəs/

noun
 




  1. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.











Probably should consider it person if it's the actual definition.  Kinda makes sense. 

 
dankebe said:
fe·tus


Dictionary result for fetus


/ˈfēdəs/

noun
 




  1. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.











Probably should consider it person if it's the actual definition.  Kinda makes sense. 
Click to expand...




The definition is what is being debated, so this is a bad argument.

 
TGHusker said:
Yes, I know the Sun is 'one of those papers'.   Note they give the other side of the story also - from the researchers' perspective.   If it is true it doesn't matter who reports it does it  as long as it is reported representative of the facts and perspective of both sides.  - abortion favoring big papers like NYT, W Post, etc sure won't write a negative story about it. 

Other sources.   I would think Scientific America would be a valid source. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-fetal-tissue-research/

NYT did a story on the hold on govt funding for such research

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/health/f
Click to expand...






Re: It doesn’t matter who’s reporting it as long as it’s reporting the facts.

Who is reporting it helps us determine whether it’s fact or not. Leave the tabloids out and it’ll be easier to take it seriously. 

 
dankebe said:
Fine....what happens if the mother does nothing?  Gives birth to a human.  End of story.
Click to expand...




What happens if the man doesn’t pull out?

I agree most of the time an abortion doesn’t occur, a baby is born, but not always. And I am pro life. But this is not a black and white issue. E.g., I think the parents should be able to decide to save the mother over the baby. 

And I understand why there is debate on when human life starts. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top