That would also mean a woman no longer has the right to do what she wants to do with her body. Abhorrent.

Men do not have the same rights as women when is comes to reproduction thanks to biology. Is it fair? No. What can we do about it? Nothing, just accept it.

Until men can carry babies to term the decision to have an abortion (or not) has to stay a right of the mother.

Actually, you do. They come 12 to a box and are individually wrapped for situational transport.

That is birth control and has nothing to do with reproductive rights.

Having reproductive rights would mean a woman would need her man’s agreement before having an abortion.

And therefor a man could veto an abortion. Meaning if the woman went ahead with it she and the person performing it would get jail time.

And why don’t men have reproductive rights?

Actually, you do. They come 12 to a box and are individually wrapped for situational transport.

Who decides the combinations and how?

Interesting how a theoretical discussion over the past few days on implications of hyperskepticism, subjectivism, relativism and pragmatism, leads to the on the ground reality all too quickly:

Diagnosis: Radical secularism and relativism-driven ethical collapse in accelerating metastasis.

Prognosis: probably fatal, but perhaps a miracle will happen

Time to pray and to act, before it is too late.

GEM of TKI

PS: Scientists, too often, are DEMONSTRABLY precisely the worst-qualified, least responsible people to think or work through ethical issues that you can find; which is one lesson from the 1930s & 40s, and not just in and around Germany — just ask the ghosts of 1/2 millions from two cities in Japan. (Unfortunately, philosophers and too many theologians are now of the same ilk. Looks like Rom 1 in action to me.)

Why are you talking about Jews? I am truly lost here.

These cells in the majority of cases would have been discarded in any case, they never would have had even the possiblity of development.

And yet you would rather they were thrown away then used to create life saving treatments!

Right. They’re not really human, only quasi-human or sub-human, so we may as well use them to derive what benefit we can. They were going to be destroyed anyway.

Remind me, are we disussing embryos or Jews…I forget?

I recommend that you never parse too closely a two-word quotation of an anonymity in a story prognosticating what the news will be in several days.

My comments were not in response to a two word quotation, but to an entire stated worldview that science and not politics should judge [the morality and ethics]. But it is worth noting that in this case the two words “scientific integrity” come with a boatload of philosophical presuppositions about the nature of science, the role of science in culture, and the moral and ethical boundaries within which science may operate and how and under what circumstances restrictions may be placed on scientific practice. There is way more than the reversal of Pres. Bush’s policies at stake here.

One of the purposes of UD is to expose the idea that:

Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins.

In the comments made last week and this week, we are witnessing the materialistic worldview in full force. The entire argument that science not politics ought to judge is rooted in a materialist and utilitarian philosophy. The question that neither science nor the Administration is asking is “what does it mean to be human?”