The Forum > Article Comments > Fetal tissue sting > Comments
Fetal tissue sting : Comments
By Peter Sellick, published 24/7/2015But why should we be surprised or shocked by the discovery that fetal tissue was actively sought by medical researchers?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- ...
- 15
- 16
- 17
-
- All
yeah abortion is about that poor 13 year old girl being raped. These killers have much in common with the Nazis.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 25 July 2015 8:33:27 PM
| |
Sells wrote: “The eclipse of the understanding of God as truth is the reason we find talk about truth difficult if not impossible.”
The above is an example of complete nonsense. Sells has equated belief which cannot be substantiated with truth which can. Some statements can be determined to be true or false. True statements may be tautologies. True statements can be substantiated by evidence. False statements can be shown to be logically contradictory or disproved by the evidence . Example of a true statement: Green has a wavelength of 530 millimicrons. Example of a false statement: Fish are mammals. As Godel showed some logical statements in an axiomatic system cannot be determined true or false. Talk about truth is not at all difficult. God is a human invention. There is no evidence to support the existence of such an entity. That there is a God is an unprovable assumption as are many religious statements. Example of a meaningless statement: God is truth. Since the statement is meaningless serious talk about it is impossible. Posted by david f, Saturday, 25 July 2015 9:05:18 PM
| |
DavidF:
I agree with you that such statements are meaningless. The best response is no response at all. Posted by phanto, Saturday, 25 July 2015 9:35:43 PM
| |
Sells,
I do not understand why you find puzzling my link showing that there is also a less emotional and more rational way of looking at the topic of your article (that in principle I agree with) than most of the reactions you got here. Some confuse arguments for something to be allowed, i.e. to be legal, with those for it being a human “right”. In case of e.g. smoking the distinction is clear (they are legal but I do not think being allowed to smoke constitutes a human right). As for having an abortion, the distinction is not so clear and arguments for or against the one are often confused with those for or against the other. Of course, in addition to this there are also ethical concerns - evaluated differently by different people subscribing to different ethical norms - and with trafficking in aborted (or miscarried) tissues added, there is also the aesthetic factor that adds to the emotions and confusion. Posted by George, Saturday, 25 July 2015 11:11:16 PM
| |
.
Dear Peter, . You wrote : « There were many reports of this event. I chose to use the one with a complete transcript. » Thanks for the explanation. . I see there has been a call for congressional investigation into the allegations of unethical and illegal actions of the Planned Parenthood organisation which is reported to perform 1 in 3 abortions in the US and is heavily subsidised by public funds. However, the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Washington, John Boehner, was quoted Friday as having said he wanted more “facts” before ending Planned Parenthood’s public funding which reportedly represents 41% of to the total revenue of the organisation : http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/24/boehner-wants-more-facts-before-ending-planned-parenthood-funding-heres-8/ We shall have to await the outcome of the congressional investigation which now seems inevitable. If the allegations are substantiated, obviously, those responsible should be severely condemned and sanctioned. . That said, abortion, as such, is neither illegal in the US nor is it deemed to be unethical. The same principle applies in respect of the donation of tissue from aborted foetuses for medical research. Trafficking of such tissue, whether for medical research or otherwise, is, of course, both illegal in the US and considered unethical. The gory details of how the foetuses are manipulated in the delivery room in order to preserve them in the best state possible is totally irrelevant to the questions of legality and ethics, though they may impress and shock the uninitiated such as myself. As George rightly observes: “ … there is also the aesthetic factor that adds to the emotions and confusion”. In a 2001 article, Heather Boonstra, Director of Public Policy at the Guttmacher Institute in the US noted : « Dating back to the 1930s, scientists have used tissue from aborted fetuses as a means of understanding cell biology and as an important tool in the development of vaccines. The 1954 Nobel Prize for Medicine, for example, was awarded to American immunologists who developed the polio vaccine based on cultures of human fetal kidney cells. » : http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/04/1/gr040103.html Wikipedia says this on “foetus” : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus . Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 26 July 2015 9:18:58 AM
| |
Much is being made of Planned Parenthood's role. What of the organisations that sought the tissues and offered to pay? Were these publicly funded? Given that the US had a long standing ban on publicly funded stem cell research, it seems likely they were private or venture capital. Have they been subjected to similar nit picking? Are the shareholders "christian" or just rich?
Rusty Posted by Rusty Catheter, Sunday, 26 July 2015 10:06:33 AM
|