OT: Interesting article on stem-cell breakthrough

[ohsherrie]

One of the MANY things that bug me about the evangelicals (not that I'm saying you're one) and the republicans is that evangelicals traditionally support the republican party which is traditionally the party that says they want the government to have less interference in the individual lives of the people. Yet the evangelicals want the govenment to enforce their moral code on everyone. That's about as interfering as you can get.

Yes exactly sherrie. Keep the preaching about what is or isn't "moral" in the churches and out of the government. If something is going to save my child's life I'm going to do it. The problem is that while everyone is arguing morality, people are taking their sick children/family members to other countries to be treated for things. So what about those who can't afford to do that. They're forced to sit here and listen to the leaders of their country tell them that while there maybe medical evidence to support the possibility that there's a cure/treatment for what's going to kill their child, it's not a legal option because everyone is sitting around arguing about whether god thinks it's okay. And yes, that is about as interfering as you can get.

Thank you. I was beginning to feel like Don Quixote and nobody else saw the windmills.

Nobody is telling people who don't believe in stem cell research, abortion, or having another child to save a previous one that they have to do so. Why do they have to tell us that people who do want to can't?

[Rick]

One of the MANY things that bug me about the evangelicals (not that I'm saying you're one) and the republicans is that evangelicals traditionally support the republican party which is traditionally the party that says they want the government to have less interference in the individual lives of the people. Yet the evangelicals want the govenment to enforce their moral code on everyone. That's about as interfering as you can get.

Yes exactly sherrie. Keep the preaching about what is or isn't "moral" in the churches and out of the government. If something is going to save my child's life I'm going to do it. The problem is that while everyone is arguing morality, people are taking their sick children/family members to other countries to be treated for things. So what about those who can't afford to do that. They're forced to sit here and listen to the leaders of their country tell them that while there maybe medical evidence to support the possibility that there's a cure/treatment for what's going to kill their child, it's not a legal option because everyone is sitting around arguing about whether god thinks it's okay. And yes, that is about as interfering as you can get.

Thank you. I was beginning to feel like Don Quixote and nobody else saw the windmills.

Nobody is telling people who don't believe in stem cell research, abortion, or having another child to save a previous one that they have to do so. Why do they have to tell us that people who do want to can't?

The government officials do everything, and make every decision with one thing in particular in mind. The public opinion. They do what makes them more popular. In these situations anyway. It's not always what you or I think is the right thing, but they do it to pacify the masses. That's what I think anyway.

[bluejeangirl76]

One of the MANY things that bug me about the evangelicals (not that I'm saying you're one) and the republicans is that evangelicals traditionally support the republican party which is traditionally the party that says they want the government to have less interference in the individual lives of the people. Yet the evangelicals want the govenment to enforce their moral code on everyone. That's about as interfering as you can get.

Yes exactly sherrie. Keep the preaching about what is or isn't "moral" in the churches and out of the government. If something is going to save my child's life I'm going to do it. The problem is that while everyone is arguing morality, people are taking their sick children/family members to other countries to be treated for things. So what about those who can't afford to do that. They're forced to sit here and listen to the leaders of their country tell them that while there maybe medical evidence to support the possibility that there's a cure/treatment for what's going to kill their child, it's not a legal option because everyone is sitting around arguing about whether god thinks it's okay. And yes, that is about as interfering as you can get.

Thank you. I was beginning to feel like Don Quixote and nobody else saw the windmills.

Nobody is telling people who don't believe in stem cell research, abortion, or having another child to save a previous one that they have to do so. Why do they have to tell us that people who do want to can't?

Very simple answer. Because we've got a big problem in this country with people who simple can't STFU about things that don't affect them. Is it putting a big stress on your life if *I* go have an abortion, or if I go this church or that school, or this concert or that movie? No, of course not. But you absolutely can't do anything without some asshole having an opinion about it. You see it everywhere. People protest movies and TV shows and radio shows, etc., because they don't like it - what, that means NONE of us should see/hear it? Turn your head and turn the thing off if you don't like it. This is no different. Don't believe in abortion? Great. Wonderful. Then don't have one. Don't believe in stem cell treatment? Great. That's up to you. Find something else to support. But don't fucking tell *me* what to believe or do or support. Screw that.

But the minute one of their kids gets sick, or their mother or sister or brother or best friend, you'll see that wind blowing in a new direction mighty quick, baby.

[scarygirl]

One of the MANY things that bug me about the evangelicals (not that I'm saying you're one) and the republicans is that evangelicals traditionally support the republican party which is traditionally the party that says they want the government to have less interference in the individual lives of the people. Yet the evangelicals want the govenment to enforce their moral code on everyone. That's about as interfering as you can get.

Yes exactly sherrie. Keep the preaching about what is or isn't "moral" in the churches and out of the government. If something is going to save my child's life I'm going to do it. The problem is that while everyone is arguing morality, people are taking their sick children/family members to other countries to be treated for things. So what about those who can't afford to do that. They're forced to sit here and listen to the leaders of their country tell them that while there maybe medical evidence to support the possibility that there's a cure/treatment for what's going to kill their child, it's not a legal option because everyone is sitting around arguing about whether god thinks it's okay. And yes, that is about as interfering as you can get.

Thank you. I was beginning to feel like Don Quixote and nobody else saw the windmills.

Nobody is telling people who don't believe in stem cell research, abortion, or having another child to save a previous one that they have to do so. Why do they have to tell us that people who do want to can't?

I believe in stem cell research if it's done in a way that we're not creating fetuses to save others and promoting more abortions. The OP said there is a new treatment out on the horizon that would not only promote lives, but save them as well. All this talk of not wanting to legislate is ridiculous. People want to legislate universal health coverage. A lot of people seem to be for that. We have laws against murder and rape, although in the terms of rape, don't get me started. If people had it their way, those laws would be abolished. We have laws that for all sorts of behavior. If you drive too fast you get a ticket. But, when it comes to the protection of our least? OH no.

[scarygirl]

One of the MANY things that bug me about the evangelicals (not that I'm saying you're one) and the republicans is that evangelicals traditionally support the republican party which is traditionally the party that says they want the government to have less interference in the individual lives of the people. Yet the evangelicals want the govenment to enforce their moral code on everyone. That's about as interfering as you can get.

Yes exactly sherrie. Keep the preaching about what is or isn't "moral" in the churches and out of the government. If something is going to save my child's life I'm going to do it. The problem is that while everyone is arguing morality, people are taking their sick children/family members to other countries to be treated for things. So what about those who can't afford to do that. They're forced to sit here and listen to the leaders of their country tell them that while there maybe medical evidence to support the possibility that there's a cure/treatment for what's going to kill their child, it's not a legal option because everyone is sitting around arguing about whether god thinks it's okay. And yes, that is about as interfering as you can get.

Thank you. I was beginning to feel like Don Quixote and nobody else saw the windmills.

Nobody is telling people who don't believe in stem cell research, abortion, or having another child to save a previous one that they have to do so. Why do they have to tell us that people who do want to can't?

Very simple answer. Because we've got a big problem in this country with people who simple can't STFU about things that don't affect them. Is it putting a big stress on your life if *I* go have an abortion, or if I go this church or that school, or this concert or that movie? No, of course not. But you absolutely can't do anything without some asshole having an opinion about it. You see it everywhere. People protest movies and TV shows and radio shows, etc., because they don't like it - what, that means NONE of us should see/hear it? Turn your head and turn the thing off if you don'tlike it. This is no different. Dn't believe in abortion? Great. Wonderful. Don't have one. Don't believe in stem cell treatment? Great. That's up to you. Find something else to support.

But the minute one of their kids gets sick, or their mother or sister or brother or best friend, you'll see that wind blowing in a new direction mighty quick, baby.

Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't make one an asshole. If there is away to provide stem cells without hurting another person then it should be done. A person can be for advancement and preserve the sanctity of life. At the same time, there are some lines that should never be crossed because eventually that line will come back to you.

[ohsherrie]

But the minute one of their kids gets sick, or their mother or sister or brother or best friend, you'll see that wind blowing in a new direction mighty quick, baby.

Yep, that's what will separate the theory from the reality. The ones that will choose their theory over their family member are either the zealots or the sociopaths but they may be both the same.

[bluejeangirl76]

Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't make one an asshole. If there is away to provide stem cells without hurting another person then it should be done. A person can be for advancement and preserve the sanctity of life. At the same time, there are some lines that should never be crossed because eventually that line will come back to you.

No, that isn't where I was going with that, and I am quite sure that was clear. Having a different opinion doesn't make a person an asshole. Having a different opinion and going out of the way to force it on people because one doesn't like what folks are doing and/or supporting - that is what's 'asshole' about it.

[scarygirl]

But the minute one of their kids gets sick, or their mother or sister or brother or best friend, you'll see that wind blowing in a new direction mighty quick, baby.

Yep, that's what will separate the theory from the reality. The ones that will choose their theory over their family member are either the zealots or the sociopaths but they may be both the same.

Right choices rarely win the popular vote. When we as a society only see others for only what they can do for us and not as the beautiful beings that they are with their own strengths and weaknesses and their own purpose created by a higher love then we are truly lost. Trust me when I say that I will never bring kids into this world, not if I can help it because what I see is no good. This way, whatever would have been will always be pure and never know the sorrows here on earth.

[ohsherrie]

I believe in stem cell research if it's done in a way that we're not creating fetuses to save others and promoting more abortions. The OP said there is a new treatment out on the horizon that would not only promote lives, but save them as well. All this talk of not wanting to legislate is ridiculous. People want to legislate universal health coverage. A lot of people seem to be for that. We have laws against murder and rape, although in the terms of rape, don't get me started. If people had it their way, those laws would be abolished. We have laws that for all sorts of behavior. If you drive too fast you get a ticket. But, when it comes to the protection of our least? OH no.

I'm not sure I understand what your point is here, but I'll try to address what I understand.

First of all, I don't think creating fetuses to save others or promoting more abortions has been offered as an option.

As far as "wanting to legislate", nothing can become a law without being legislated. The Supreme Court doesn't make laws, it interprets and applied them, so any laws first have to be legislated.

[ohsherrie]

But the minute one of their kids gets sick, or their mother or sister or brother or best friend, you'll see that wind blowing in a new direction mighty quick, baby.

Yep, that's what will separate the theory from the reality. The ones that will choose their theory over their family member are either the zealots or the sociopaths but they may be both the same.

Right choices rarely win the popular vote. When we as a society only see others for only what they can do for us and not as the beautiful beings that they are with their own strengths and weaknesses and their own purpose created by a higher love then we are truly lost. Trust me when I say that I will never bring kids into this world, not if I can help it because what I see is no good. This way, whatever would have been will always be pure and never know the sorrows here on earth.

OK, take a deep breath and step away from your computer. You're truly scaring me scarygirl. This is just a message board argument not a life and death situation.

[bluejeangirl76]

This is just a message board argument not a life and death situation.

Wouldn't be the first time sherrie. It's crazy how things get taken out of control. Time to relax.
Have some tea. Let's browse the football thread or something.

[ohsherrie]

This is just a message board argument not a life and death situation.

Wouldn't be the first time sherrie. It's crazy how things get taken out of control. Time to relax.
Have some tea. Let's browse the football thread or something.

'K, I'm gonna check out the Jeremey and Jeff thread.

[scarygirl]

I believe in stem cell research if it's done in a way that we're not creating fetuses to save others and promoting more abortions. The OP said there is a new treatment out on the horizon that would not only promote lives, but save them as well. All this talk of not wanting to legislate is ridiculous. People want to legislate universal health coverage. A lot of people seem to be for that. We have laws against murder and rape, although in the terms of rape, don't get me started. If people had it their way, those laws would be abolished. We have laws that for all sorts of behavior. If you drive too fast you get a ticket. But, when it comes to the protection of our least? OH no.

I'm not sure I understand what your point is here, but I'll try to address what I understand.

First of all, I don't think creating fetuses to save others or promoting more abortions has been offered as an option.

As far as "wanting to legislate", nothing can become a law without being legislated. The Supreme Court doesn't make laws, it interprets and applied them, so any laws first have to be legislated.

Not yet, but it will be. It's in the pipeline. If it's okay with aborted fetuses, and people don't consider fetuses human beings then the natural progression would be to create fetuses just for the purpose of using their parts- stem cells, organs, what have you.

You said no one should legislate and make laws concerning your body and I pointed out there are already laws out there governing your body. Laws that protect against murder, rape, and speeding in essense do protect your body in that no one is allowed to do those things in that they will cause you harm both intentionally and accidentally.

BTW, I'm college educated, I do know a little about how laws are created and passed.

[ohsherrie]

Not yet, but it will be. It's in the pipeline. If it's okay with aborted fetuses, and people don't consider fetuses human beings then the natural progression would be to create fetuses just for the purpose of using their parts- stem cells, organs, what have you.

You said no one should legislate and make laws concerning your body and I pointed out there are already laws out there governing your body. Laws that protect against murder, rape, and speeding in essense do protect your body in that no one is allowed to do those things in that they will cause you harm both intentionally and accidentally.

BTW, I'm college educated, I do know a little about how laws are created and passed.

OK, so tell me how you would word the bill that you would propose and how would you suggest it be enforced if it were to be passed into law?

[Tom Jrnyfn]

Is this what a music board has turned into? Debating stem cell research?

[bluejeangirl76]

Is this what a music board has turned into? Debating stem cell research?

"OT" means off topic around here. If you see that, it's not about music/Journey.
There are other things to discuss in the world. Nothing wrong with that, right?
Curiously waiting for the answer to the question that sherrie has asked at least 3 times now....

[scarygirl]

Not yet, but it will be. It's in the pipeline. If it's okay with aborted fetuses, and people don't consider fetuses human beings then the natural progression would be to create fetuses just for the purpose of using their parts- stem cells, organs, what have you.

You said no one should legislate and make laws concerning your body and I pointed out there are already laws out there governing your body. Laws that protect against murder, rape, and speeding in essense do protect your body in that no one is allowed to do those things in that they will cause you harm both intentionally and accidentally.

BTW, I'm college educated, I do know a little about how laws are created and passed.

OK, so tell me how you would word the bill that you would propose and how would you suggest it be enforced if it were to be passed into law?

That's how I would word it, more or less.

Abortion should only be available in cases and rape and incest and where there is absolute certainty that the woman will die from bearing said child. To inhibit the need for such extreme measures, birth control and the morning after pill should be made available to all that seek it without interference. In cases of rape and incest, criminal prosecution should be automatic so the family cannot cover it up through said abortion, nor should the girl be forced into an abortion to help preserve the family standing. If said family does this, they should be thrown in jail along with the perpetrator. If an adult is having sex with someone under the age of consent and takes the minor to have an abortion to cover up their misdeed then they should be also be jailed for circumventing evidence. If the abortion provider does not report suspected abuse against said minor they should be fined no less than $100,000 per instance.

[donnaplease]

No, that isn't where I was going with that, and I am quite sure that was clear. Having a different opinion doesn't make a person an asshole. Having a different opinion and going out of the way to force it on people because one doesn't like what folks are doing and/or supporting - that is what's 'asshole' about it.

The funny thing about that is that depending on which side of the aisle you're sitting on dictates who is the one 'forcing' an opinion on people. For example, the liberals tend to approve of late-term abortion, whereas the conservatives think it's barbaric and unnecessary. A conservative may believe in prayer in school and posting the Ten Commandments on public property, while a liberal is offended by those things. Each side feels like the other is infringing on their rights, and it gets to the point where it is no longer debate, but ridiculous argument that goes around and around with no logical end in sight.

As for religion in politics, I happen to believe that our country was founded on religious beliefs, and to say that there is no place in politics for religion is absurd. Granted, viewpoints have diversified since the founding fathers established our constitution, but I feel like the foundation is still there. It just bugs me to have people say that following that foundation is stepping on someone's rights. Our government is not dictated by religion. It is a system BY the people FOR the people. These people are human, and only have their own personal experiences to guide them. They are elected to office for the character that they present to us. Some of us prefer a more conservative approach, while others of us want to be left alone to do our own thing, however we see fit. Honestly, I think this is what is destroying our country. The more liberal we become, the less morality we seem to show. And that is because of lack of accountability for one's own self. My personal opinion is that we need MORE religion, not less, in our world. I'm not referring to the kooks, but I do believe having God in our lives makes a difference. JMHO. I'm currently reading the "Left Behind" series, and although it is fiction, it is totally riveting and eye-opening.

[Rhiannon]

Each side feels like the other is infringing on their rights, and it gets to the point where it is no longer debate, but ridiculous argument that goes around and around with no logical end in sight.

Hence the last umpteen pages of this thread.

...I love you Donna, you have a way with words.

[bluejeangirl76]

No, that isn't where I was going with that, and I am quite sure that was clear. Having a different opinion doesn't make a person an asshole. Having a different opinion and going out of the way to force it on people because one doesn't like what folks are doing and/or supporting - that is what's 'asshole' about it.

The funny thing about that is that depending on which side of the aisle you're sitting on dictates who is the one 'forcing' an opinion on people.

Agreed. That's true too. Perhaps I should have expanded that thought to say that while one side is forcing their beliefs, the other side, holding their own beliefs doesn't want to hear about it because they don't agree, and turn around with their own argument. That's where it gets hairy and the morality issues arise. I'll use an example that cropped up on me recently - arguing presidential candidates as well as the current president. There was a no-end battle of opinion about who is running this place and who the options to run it are going to be next year. I have certain people around me that I simply cannot discuss these things with, so what I do is attempt to end the "discussion" by pointing out that at the end of the day we're all going to vote for who we each choose and no amount of arguing is going to change that, nor is it going to make one of the two of us "right".

I'm someone who can accept that and walk away from the argument. Many people can and do. Many can't and don't and won't let it go, thinking that you're somehow going to see their side and drop your beliefs. It happens in every facet of life. hell, how many Perry/Augeri/JSS/Arnel arguments have happened around here? Same type of thing. Sometimes you just need to walk away from it because it's like arguing with drywall. No one wants to be told what to do or how to think, or that they're wrong for believing one thing over another. But some folks have no reservations about going the way overzealous route, getting high and mighty and making people feel bad about believing/supporting something, arguing something they can't even support with facts, even taking the route of violence, situations like that... and that's the part that's asshole.

[Little Lenny]

The story in the link below will help eliminate the moral issues.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=688591

Thanks Rick that was an interesting read, and sort of echoes what I said if they could find a way of doing this without the use of embryo's then all the better.

I don't take a side and haven't on this thread, because I can see the relevance of both viewpoints.

It has been interesting to see that others do have a defined viewpoint which they stick to though, and in a way that's good, because different viewpoints, ideas, and beliefs are what make us what we are and provide us with medical breakthrough's apart from numerous other things in day to day life.

In other words, no matter whether you're on one side, on the other, or slap bang in the middle regarding those viewpoints, the ability to have a idea borne out of what you believe, what you think may be of help to someone else, is one of those things that make us all Human, regardless of race religion or colour or what your standpoint is

[Rick]

The story in the link below will help eliminate the moral issues.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=688591

Thanks Rick that was an interesting read, and sort of echoes what I said if they could find a way of doing this without the use of embryo's then all the better.

I don't take a side and haven't on this thread, because I can see the relevance of both viewpoints.

It has been interesting to see that others do have a defined viewpoint which they stick to though, and in a way that's good, because different viewpoints, ideas, and beliefs are what make us what we are and provide us with medical breakthrough's apart from numerous other things in day to day life.

In other words, no matter whether you're on one side, on the other, or slap bang in the middle regarding those viewpoints, the ability to have a idea borne out of what you believe, what you think may be of help to someone else, is one of those things that make us all Human, regardless of race religion or colour or what your standpoint is

I'm also able to see points from both sides. I straddle the fence on some of the issues.

[Little Lenny]

The story in the link below will help eliminate the moral issues.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=688591

Thanks Rick that was an interesting read, and sort of echoes what I said if they could find a way of doing this without the use of embryo's then all the better.

I don't take a side and haven't on this thread, because I can see the relevance of both viewpoints.

It has been interesting to see that others do have a defined viewpoint which they stick to though, and in a way that's good, because different viewpoints, ideas, and beliefs are what make us what we are and provide us with medical breakthrough's apart from numerous other things in day to day life.

In other words, no matter whether you're on one side, on the other, or slap bang in the middle regarding those viewpoints, the ability to have a idea borne out of what you believe, what you think may be of help to someone else, is one of those things that make us all Human, regardless of race religion or colour or what your standpoint is

I'm also able to see points from both sides. I straddle the fence on some of the issues.

Me too, Always have always will on the big questions, and debates. At the end of day we all have our different idea, but we are all one and the same, Human.It's easy to forget that we have that as our one common ground, one link, that will never change don't you think?

[Rhiannon]

Me too, Always have always will on the big questions, and debates. At the end of day we all have our different idea, but we are all one and the same, Human.It's easy to forget that we have that as our one common ground, one link, that will never change don't you think?

Exactly, and all this repetitive bickering solves nothing. It only perpetuates the chasm between different views.

[Little Lenny]

Me too, Always have always will on the big questions, and debates. At the end of day we all have our different idea, but we are all one and the same, Human.It's easy to forget that we have that as our one common ground, one link, that will never change don't you think?

Exactly, and all this repetitive bickering solves nothing. It only perpetuates the chasm between different views.

totally, but the one thing we are forgetting is human nature, everyone is different that's what makes us such an unusual creature

[Rhiannon]

totally, but the one thing we are forgetting is human nature, everyone is different that's what makes us such an unusual creature

Completely different and unique. But intrinsically similar. The same basic needs, desires, and contemplations. Trying to change someone (be it opinion, belief, speech, or hair color) is ignorant and wrong. Live and let live, you can't and won't change anybody, nor should you. Both sides are wrong, both are right. Its all perception and interpretation of the perception.

[conversationpc]

OK, so tell me how you would word the bill that you would propose and how would you suggest it be enforced if it were to be passed into law?

I love how this argument is just thrown out there to sort of end the argument, as if the other side must know how to word the law if they are going to hold a position on it. Most of us here don't know enough legalese to word a law accordingly so that it would be, first off, legal and, secondly, worded so that it would be difficult to find loopholes.

[Little Lenny]

totally, but the one thing we are forgetting is human nature, everyone is different that's what makes us such an unusual creature

Completely different and unique. But intrinsically similar. The same basic needs, desires, and contemplations. Trying to change someone (be it opinion, belief, speech, or hair color) is ignorant and wrong. Live and let live, you can't and won't change anybody, nor should you. Both sides are wrong, both are right. Its all perception and interpretation of the perception.

The thing is people will always think that thier view is 'THE' View, it is in each one of us to accept or decline IMO, it is also in us to be defensive of what we percieve as being right or wrong...unfortunately sometimes this goes off on a uncontrollable 'joy ride'...Just another trait that makes us what we are.

[ohsherrie]

OK, so tell me how you would word the bill that you would propose and how would you suggest it be enforced if it were to be passed into law?

I love how this argument is just thrown out there to sort of end the argument, as if the other side must know how to word the law if they are going to hold a position on it. Most of us here don't know enough legalese to word a law accordingly so that it would be, first off, legal and, secondly, worded so that it would be difficult to find loopholes.

I wasn't asking for legalese. By asking what the law would say and how it would be enforced I was hoping to make a point. this is how scarygirl answered:

Abortion should only be available in cases and rape and incest and where there is absolute certainty that the woman will die from bearing said child. To inhibit the need for such extreme measures, birth control and the morning after pill should be made available to all that seek it without interference. In cases of rape and incest, criminal prosecution should be automatic so the family cannot cover it up through said abortion, nor should the girl be forced into an abortion to help preserve the family standing. If said family does this, they should be thrown in jail along with the perpetrator. If an adult is having sex with someone under the age of consent and takes the minor to have an abortion to cover up their misdeed then they should be also be jailed for circumventing evidence. If the abortion provider does not report suspected abuse against said minor they should be fined no less than $100,000 per instance.

Now what I'd like to know is how many video cameras are going to be watching everybody's lives to make sure all of the above requirements are met so that this law can be effectively enforced?

Late term abortions should absolutely be illegal unless the woman's life is in danger and that can be enforced if doctors who perform them are prosecuted. But, you can't drag a woman or girl through the legal system for months trying to determine if her case meets and the above mentioned requirements until her pregnancy is to too far advanced.

Denying every woman or girl the right to an abortion regardless of the circumstances just because there are some who abuse the right is as absurd as denying the right to extract stem cells from fetal tissue that has already been aborted or embryos that were left over from in vitro fertility procedures with the permission of the donors.

I'm glad they're making headway on using other sources for the stem cells, but the idea that religion can dictate what medical procedures and advances will be allowed sounds medieval to me.

[bluejeangirl76]

Now what I'd like to know is how many video cameras are going to be watching everybody's lives to make sure all of the above requirements are met so that this law can be effectively enforced?

Late term abortions should absolutely be illegal unless the woman's life is in danger and that can be enforced if doctors who perform them are prosecuted. But, you can't drag a woman or girl through the legal system for months trying to determine if her case meets and the above mentioned requirements until her pregnancy is to too far advanced.

Denying every woman or girl the right to an abortion regardless of the circumstances just because there are some who abuse the right is as absurd as denying the right to extract stem cells from fetal tissue that has already been aborted or embryos that were left over from in vitro fertility procedures with the permission of the donors.

I'm glad they're making headway on using other sources for the stem cells, but the idea that religion can dictate what medical procedures and advances will be allowed sounds medieval to me.

Bravo. Good points, sherrie. And nowhere in the proposed legislative action did it say anything about stem cell research, which I thought was the topic at hand here, and was in fact part of the argument halfway up the page. Where'd it go? We went from stem cell research to underaged sex, and abortion providers who don't report it, which is a whole separate matter entirely.