The study showed that stem cell migration into the damaged area of the inner ear improved hearing of high frequency sound by 23 per cent, as compared to natural recovery in untreated animals.
But you know what else would help? If doctors and clinic staff dispelled the misconception many women have that the "early option" is an easy option. In all fairness, my postabortion experience was, according to several gynecologists, more severe than most. It's entirely possible that the aftershocks I suffered were magnified by grief as well as guilt that I'd brought this on myself. But was it the abortion pill that magnified my grief and guilt over ending the pregnancy or the grief and guilt that magnified my reaction to the abortion pill? There's no way to really know.
Many of Silver's quarrels with evangelical and Catholic conservatives display a weak grasp of the material. Lifenews.com is not part of the "evangelical press." The Catholic Church did not reach the conclusion that embryos should be protected from conception onward because of a belief that sperm were tiny human beings. The view that embryos have "a rational nature" is not "equivalent to saying that a single cell can think on its own and make sensible choices about its future life." The word "goods" is not "a term used uniquely by adherents of natural law." Pro-lifers have no ambition to deny other people's rights "not to hold a Christian belief in the ensoulment of an early embryo"; they merely deny that people have a right to kill embryos on the basis of their beliefs. The proposed ban on cloning would not make it a crime to go overseas to get medical treatments based on cloning and then return to the U.S. The congressman who introduced that bill is named David, not Joseph, Weldon. And so, alas, on.
Over 18 months, I traveled to 20 states listening to women of all ages, races, tax brackets and points of view speak at length on the issues they care about heading into '08. They convinced me that the conventional wisdom was wrong about the last presidential contest, that Democrats did not lose support among women because "security moms" saw President Bush as the better protector against terrorism. What first-time defectors mentioned most often was abortion.
Specifically, the researchers want to determine if the stem cells can prevent late scar formation and the impaired heart contraction that can result from that scarring.
I am a Conservative. Does that make me a bible-thumpin', anti-abortion, anti-science moron? No, of course not - no matter what some of the people here might have you believe. I am an Atheist. I know a fetus doesn't become a child until it can survive outside the womb without artificial means of support and, because of that, abortion is really nothing more than excising a piece of unwanted tissue in much the same way one would get rid of a cyst, tumor, or parasitic infestation. I believe my President was wrong to veto this very important bill.
I see people here making too many blanket statements and generalizations, each one taking up a position at one farthest end or the other of the political spectrum. I see a great deal of invective from both sides and the few who try to maintain intelligent discourse seem to be the targets of the most vehement attacks....
For my fellow Conservatives that argue this bill only prevents tax dollars from being spent but doesn't hinder private research, you need to understand that there are currently only a very limited number of "lines" of embryonic stemcells legalized for use in this country and no researcher may use any cells but those in their studies. This bill for Federal funding would've opened up the possibility of establishing new cell lines from the previously mentioned surplus embryos. With the bill vetoed, research is still limited to just those lines no matter how much private funding you might have.
The lawsuit alleges that Edrica Goode, 21, went to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Riverside for an abortion Jan. 31 and that a nurse inserted cervical dilators, used to gradually expand the cervix in preparation for second-trimester abortions, despite the fact that Goode had a vaginal infection.
These opponents have tried to argue that time and advances in stem-cell science have undermined the principle of the Bush policy. But in reality, over the past two years a slow but steady wave of new research has begun to undermine not the Bush policy but rather the two original premises of the entire stem-cell debate. It seems that embryonic stem cells may not be unique in their so-called "pluripotency," and it therefore seems that cells with the potential scientists are after could be obtained without causing harm to human embryos.
As President, I will lift the ban on ethical embryonic stem cell research and allow our scientists to pursue treatments that could help millions of Americans.Why must proponents of embryonic stem cell research continually lie about whether human embryonic stem research is banned or not and whether it receives federal funds or not?
Somewhat ironically, though, in making their case for proceeding with research on other kinds of hybrid and chimeric embryos, they use an argument that could equally undermine respect afforded to people who are disabled or elderly. For they argue that human "dignity arises from the qualities possessed by a creature, rather than species membership per se."
However, they do not define what these mystic "factors of form, function or behaviour" are. If we can justify excluding human rights from individuals who because of their immaturity lack certain undefined "factors of form, function or behaviour," then what is to prevent us from excluding those same rights from individuals who because of physical or mental impairment also lack those same factors?....
Or, to encroach on the abortion debate, at what point of maturity do embryos acquire the necessary "factors of form, function or behaviour" to merit their protection from needless destruction? At present, the creation and use of human embryos for research is not permitted beyond 14 days in vitro. In order to be consistent, should the time frame allowed for human embryo research be extended to 24 weeks to match that for abortions, should the time frame for abortions be reduced to 14 days to match that for in vitro experiments, or should some other compromise be reached?
From the beginning of the abortion debate, those favoring abortion have pointed to the social costs of "unwanted" children who simply won't get the attention of "wanted" ones. But there is a trade-off that has long been neglected. Abortion may eliminate "unwanted" children, but it increases out-of-wedlock births and single parenthood.This reminds me of something Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book Party of Death (pages 69, 71):
Freakonomics got this much right: The legalization of abortion caused the number of conceptions to go up 30 percent, while causing the number of birth to go down by only 6 percent.
Many of the unborn children who have been aborted since Roe, in other words, would never have been conceived in the first place without it.....
(Legalized) Abortion may not lead to fewer unwanted children; it may lead to the birth of more children who aren't wanted by their fathers. While this result may sound counterintuitive - and some research supports the opposite view - it is worth noting that abortion and illegitimacy rate rose in tandem during the 1970s and have fallen in tandem since the 1990s.
Redding's bishop, the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner, says he accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and that he finds the interfaith possibilities exciting.What other "exciting" things can we do if we ignore each religion's truth claims? Maybe Redding will next believe that Jerusalem and Mecca are the same place. Or that Jesus and Mohammad were the same person. What exciting interfaith possibilities those are! Just make up whatever you want!
She believes Jesus is the son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine — because God dwells in all humans.So then Jesus is just like other humans but cooler?
The big difference, of course, is that abortion is worse than slavery. Not just in the obvious sense that it involves the taking of life rather than liberty. But because our current debate suggests that deep down most of us really know there’s something quite wrong with abortion.
Say what you will about the slaveowners, I doubt many of them sat around agonising about their decision to keep Uncle Tom and his family chained to the shack at the end of the drive. I doubt they justified it, after much soul-searching, by saying they were only painfully exercising their “choice” to own slaves so they wouldn’t have to sacrifice their standard of living.
When even Hollywood declines to celebrate the moral courage involved in choosing an abortion, it might be time we all woke up to what abortion really is.
The original research is significant because it suggests adult stem cells can develop into other cells, which is a trait previously ascribed only to the more politically touchy embryonic stem cells.
"She's a single mom with a 19 month old; co-conceiver skipped town; no child support because that dude skipped town; she is clinically very depressed and extremely desperate. She makes less than $800 a month working fulltime. She makes too much to get any state aid and definitely not covered by TNCare. She becamse pregnant after her birth control failed to prevent her pregnancy.After reading this - my first thought is what are the real problems in this woman's life? Is it that she's pregnant? Or is it that she's in a difficult spot financially, she's clinically depressed, and the man in her life has abandoned her?
Having completed her meal, the woman became nauseous, began bleeding and was close to having a miscarriage.
But behold: With this panicky recoil from the holding in Carhart, the liberals are now behind the push to have the states start legislating again on abortion. With each move, they affirm the premise that the legislatures may indeed legislate on this subject. Their aim, of course, is to vindicate the right to abortion, but they will find that, as they try to shape that right, they will also be marking, unavoidably, the limits of abortion. And those limits, they will discover, will be drawn in far less broadly than any "limits" that can be found in the law of abortion as it has been shaped by the federal courts. The champions of abortion rights fancy they are taking the initiative, resisting the Court that has been altered now by the presence of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But in the face of these initiatives, the pro-life side might well bring back that old line from Br'er Rabbit in the Uncle Remus stories: "Please don't throw me in that briar patch." But, of course, Br'er Rabbit, in the briar patch, was in his element. For the liberals to bring the issue of abortion into the arena of politics, in the legislatures, is to bring us into the briar patch, where they are likely to suffer some disagreeable surprises....
For the pro-lifers, the quibbling over trimesters touches no issue of principle, for the child does not undergo any change in species, or any morally relevant change, in the shift from the first trimester to a later one. Still, a deliberation in a legislature, even in New York or New Jersey, may find legislators trying to confine, or pretend to confine, abortions to the first trimester. But once that move is made, they would be open to the move to forbid abortion after the first evidence of a beating heart. In one recent survey, 62 percent of the respondents professed to be opposed to abortion after the evidence of a beating heart.
Lovely. Compassionate conservatives, huh?From that sarcastic post you might be thinking Jessica thinks conservatives who have rape/incest exceptions can be compassionate conservatives while conservatives without those exceptions aren't really compassionate. The problem is Jessica heaps more insults on the motives of people with exceptions.
This logic goes to show that this isn't about making sure women are informed—it's about punishing them. So women who were raped shouldn't have to have their noses rubbed in their pregnancies and be punished any further--that's just for the "bad" women who wanted to have sex. Ugh.
"Science is a gift of God to all of us and science has taken us to a place that is biblical in its power to cure," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. "And that is the embryonic stem cell research."Biblical in its power to cure whom? All those imaginary patients?
Significant numbers of scientists believe that the less controversial route to creating stem cells is possible, but their voices have been drowned out by politicians who would have it that if you're opposed to embryonic stem cell research, you're a "right-wing nut" who opposes all stem cell research.Or being drowned out by ignorant Hollywood-types. For example, this ridiculous YouTube video by director Jerry Zucker.
Quite apart from any message this sends on human cloning (and the message it sends is roughly the opposite of the one Pelosi was trying to send) this is an extraordinarily embarrassing failure of basic management by the Speaker. Did she not count votes before bringing a bill up under suspension of the rules? All she has managed to do is put her members in an even more uncomfortable position. Meanwhile she's sending them into a vote on stem cell funding tomorrow just as front page stories appear about techniques that could one day make embryo-destructive research obsolete. The bill will still pass, to be sure, but by doing so it will raise the issue to prominence in almost the least advantageous imaginable circumstances for the Democrats.
You know, it gives you the creeps when some urging, exuberant voice jumps in, telling you where to go for good abortions. This is just so crazy! The horrifying sale pitch just sounds like telling people the killing can be safe, painless and efficient.
Yes, the battle isn't over. Yes, there's still major territory we have yet to assault. Yes, there are ways for abortionists to get around the lines drawn in this bill. But the fact that there are now lines they have to work around is a significant victory that people like Dobson (and their donors and supporters) have invested enormous amounts of time, energy, and money to win. Don't go tearing them down for celebrating it. Ripping into one another will only make it that much harder for us to get off the strip of beach we have taken and start taking some real territory.
The team states its startling conclusion in the usual mild-mannered scientific deadpan: "Our results show that the biological potency and epigenetic state of in-vitro-reprogrammed induced pluripotent cells are indistinguishable from those of embryonic stem cells." They assert with confidence that their findings "establish that somatic cells can be reprogrammed to a pluripotent state that is similar, if not identical, to that of normal embryonic stem cells." In other words a regular adult cell, like one of your skin cells, can be turned into the equivalent or near-equivalent of an embryonic stem cell, and without the need for any embryos. These are truly astonishing findings, unimaginable just a few years ago.
He thinks embryonic stem cells, to be useful, would have to be turned into adult stem cells first. In that case, he asserts, there is no need to rush into research with the embryonic cells.....
The transformation of an embryonic stem cell, he says, is a one-way street: Once one of the cells turns, say, into a pancreatic cell, it can't go back. That's different from adult stem cells, which typically divide into two -- one "differentiated" cell with a specific function and another stem cell. In this way, adult stem cells keep their own numbers steady, even as they regenerate the organ they belong to.
By contrast, tissue derived from embryonic stem cells would quickly wither away, contends Dr. Sherley, unless some of the embryonic stem cells first produced into a self-sustaining colony of adult stem cells. Or, he cautions, if the tissue stayed in a more primitive form, it would keep dividing uncontrollably and cause cancer. His conclusion: It's easiest and safest to start with adult stem cells.
'I am in favour of women doing whatever they want with their bodies,' she said. 'I went to an exhibition in New York which showed the inside of the human body and also the phases of pregnancy. Until four months into the pregnancy there is almost nothing, it's like a small grain.'At then at fourth months the child instantly develops from a "small grain" into something which looks like this. Maybe Gisele should return to that exhibit but this time bring her glasses.
Their position amounts to this: Until we can legally protect all unborn humans we shouldn't protect any of them. Absurd.
One of the most striking aspects of the film is the use of language. Throughout the film, the obscenities flow freely, yet there is one word too obscene even for these foul-mouthed characters: abortion. When Ben tells his roommates about the pregnancy his buddy Jonah suggests that Alison get a procedure that, he says, "rhymes with 'shmashmortion'." He's quickly condemned as a "monster" by another roommate for even suggesting such an inhuman action. The only other person to hint that Alison should kill the child is her horrible mother who tells her to wait till she's ready to have a "real baby."
Surgeons at Moorfields have already restored the vision of a few patients using cells harvested from their own eyes, which were moved to a new site. But this process is complicated and only a small number of cells can be moved, limiting its use.
Dr. Dobson and those who agree with his position to repent of their support for this sad, cruel Supreme Court ruling is in fact a sincere plea based on our respect for them and, more importantly, our respect for the truth.Yep, that call to repent in a newspaper advertisements was done out of respect. You're not fooling anybody.
Because an anatomical part must be removed to conduct a D&E abortion, it is apparent that the Michigan statute would prohibit D&E, and under the framework of Stenberg and Gonzales, impose an unconstitutional undue burden.
Additionally, as the plaintiffs point out and the district court found, the statute's plain language would also apply to some suction curretage abortions, medical abortions and induction abortions, because the signs of life identified in the statute, such as a heartbeat, are often present after the fetus or embryo passes beyond the vaginal introitus in such procedures.
Here is the short answer.This is the same crackpot who has compared aborting children to making women "born again."
Like multitudes before me and, I trust, multitudes to come, I eventually heard (Try as I might to avoid hearing it!) in that mother's grief-filled declaration, "Oh God, Doctor, I was hoping it was cancer", a still, small voice asking, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" to which I was at last compelled to reply, "here am I, send me."
No one, neither the patient receiving an abortion, nor the person doing the abortion, is ever, at anytime, unaware that they are ending a life. We just don't believe that a developing embryo or fetus, whose mother cannot or will not accept it, has the same moral claims on us, claims to autonomy and justice, that an adolescent or adult woman has.Harrison fails to provide any reasons for why he doesn't believe the unborn have the same moral claims as older, more developed human beings.
But the truly interesting story that will go mostly unwritten is how a clearly twisted personality — driven to his assisted suicide campaign by an obsession with human vivisection and a desire to exploit the weak and desperate for crass utilitarian purposes — became, for a time, the most famous and popular doctor in the world.
Randy Roman does not dispute that he put a halt to the procedure. He declined to appear on the broadcast with his ex-wife, but acknowledged in court that he changed his mind about going through with the procedure just hours before the clinic was scheduled to implant Augusta's fertilized eggs in her uterus in April 2002.Ignoring the ignorant "fertilized egg" language, if IVF clinics weren't so focused on having high rates of success (and therefore creating more embryos than couples ever intend to implant), you'd think it'd be smart for them to create contracts where the parents consent to implanting the embryos before the embryos are created.
"A lot of fathers in our society have children and turn their backs on them," Randy's attorney, Gregory Enos, told TODAY host Meredith Vieira. "My client is an ethical, religious and moral person. And if he's going to create a child, he's going to insist on being a father, but he doesn't want to bring a child into a relationship that is already divorced and so acrimonious."Well, the problem is he's already helped create some children, hasn't he? That's what this dispute is about - whether he will allow those embryonic children a chance to continue their lives or if he will turn his back on and force them to be destroyed.
Ludicrous? If you mean that you regard Pope John Paul II as an example of empathy and compassion and not the slavishly authoritarian tyrant he was (as Rebecca pointed out so well in a comment above), well, I agree that is ludicrous.Putting aside the attack on Pope John Paul II, how disturbed does an individual have to be to call Mother Teresa a "poverty-pimp?"
Don't get me started on Pope JP II. Or the poverty-pimp of Calcutta, Mother Teresa.
How much more could Giuliani have done to make abortion prevalent in New York? Murdock's standard — that he didn't go out of his way to promote abortion in what has rightly been called the country's "abortion capital" — amounts to giving Giuliani credit for not going around performing abortions himself.
Cox said a discussion about abortion rights could be linked to that of a "just war," when killing might be justified toward a greater good. Like Hrovat, he said life was sacred. Unlike his opponent, Cox declared the right to an abortion should remain with the individual, not with the government.I wonder if infanticide could be justified on those grounds as well.
According to lead investigator Dr. Martin Marsala, "In this study, we demonstrated that grafting human neural cells directly into the spinal cord leads to a progressive recovery of motor function. This could be an effective treatment for patients suffering from the same kind of ischemia-induced paralysis. We are currently studying hSSCs in paralyzed mini-pigs, who have similar spinal cord anatomy as human spinal cords."
My story was this: Boy and girl have sex and she becomes pregnant, boy wants girl to have an abortion and girl does not want one, boy gets frustrated that girl refuses to have abortion and takes matters into his own hands by slipping the RU-486 abortion pill in girl's drink without her knowledge because this is his "choice" too, girl has miscarriage and finds out that boy caused it, boy is arrested and charged with manslaughter.
With any luck you'll survive the fetal stage of development and move on to infancy, adolescence, and adulthood. Once you reach this stage of life you'll be able to join other Americans in exercising one of our most cherished and incontrovertible rights: the right to kill a fetus for any reason you choose.
Opponents of embryonic stem cell research consider research using embryonic stem cells unethical and argue that research on adult stem cells is finding cures, too.Too? I was unaware embryonic stem cell research was finding cures or even treating humans.
Feldman said that she couldn't conduct embryonic stem cell research in her lab because of state law and limitations placed on labs that receive federal grants -- the source of much of the money for her research.A more honest article would say, "Feldman can't kill human embryos in her lab because of Michigan law and wants to conduct research on embryonic stem cell lines which aren't approved for federal funding."
But Giuliani has chosen an option that is not an option -- a belief that unborn life deserves our sympathy but does not deserve rights or justice. This view is likely to dog him in the primary process, not only because it is pro-choice but because it is incoherent.
That upbeat message was a marked contrast from the lecture Lederer and her friends heard last fall at the University of Colorado's medical school in downtown Denver. Medical Students for Choice had invited Dr. Warren Hern, a legend in the abortion rights movement, to give them encouragement. He offered none.
None of you will be an abortion provider, he told the students. You don't have it in you.
"Do something else. Fix broken legs," he often advises. "No reasonable person would do this."
A GP raised the alarm after a 22-year-old woman demanded a termination when more than six months' pregnant. He refused and a colleague referred her for counselling to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), a charity which runs a chain of private abortion clinics.
When the woman returned to the surgery about a different matter several weeks later, she was no longer pregnant and told the GP that she "had it sorted privately".
In the study, Dr. Carr and colleagues took biopsies of skeletal muscle tissue from eight female patients and isolated and expanded the stem cells from the tissue in culture. In an outpatient setting, the patients then received injections of the muscle-derived stem cells into the area surrounding the urethra.
And, sure enough, on Greenbaum's screen were three little honeycombed chambers with three fetuses growing in them. The fetuses were moving and waving their limbs; even at this point, approaching 12 weeks of gestation, they were clearly human, at that big-headed-could-be-an-alien-but-definitely-not-a-kitten stage of development. Evans has found this to be the best window of time in which to perform a reduction.
We are talking about (or, more accurately, I am trying to talk about) whether or not atheism provides any rational basis for rational condemnation when others decide to misbehave this way. You keep saying, "I have come to my ethical position." I keep asking, "Yes, quite. But why did you do so?"
.....
You preach like some hot gospeler—with a floppy leather-bound book and all. I know the book is not the Bible and so all I want to know is what book it is, and why it has anything to do with me. Why should anyone listen to your jeremiads against weirdbeards in the Middle East or fundamentalist Baptists from Virginia like Falwell? On your terms, you are just a random collection of protoplasm, noisier than most, but no more authoritative than any—which is to say, not at all.....
There are three insurmountable problems for you here. The first is that innate is not a synonym for authoritative. Why does anyone have to obey any particular prompting from within? And which internal prompting is in charge of sorting out all the other competing promptings? Why? Second, the tangled skein of innate and conflicting moralities found within the billions of humans alive today also has to be sorted out and systematized. Why do you get to do it and then come around and tell us how we must behave? Who died and left you king?
My facility is one of only two dedicated abortion providers in my state that provides terminations to 24 weeks and 6 days in a pregnancy (yes, that's 6 months; a fact that can sometimes challenge even the most pro-choice among us and is not lost on the small percentage of women who have terminations at that stage in pregnancy). What differentiates us from the other provider is our dedication to a holistic approach to abortion care. In our world abortion is not just about the physical removal of a pregnancy from the body, but it's about the heart and emotional well being of our patients as well.I wondered which clinic Conrow worked at so I did a google search and it appears at one point in 2006 she worked as the Director of Community Outreach and Education for the Cherry Hill Women's Center . That clinic is in New Jersey. Guess which other "dedicated" abortion clinic in New Jersey provides abortions to 24 weeks?
The stem cells are drawn from Rummelt's own blood and separated in a special machine. Then they are injected into her spinal fluid. Three trips and six injections later Rummelt can use her hip-flexers to crawl. A considerable feat, after not being able to move the lower half of her body for years.
Every person's circumstances are different and our society is built on the premise that people should be able to practice their own morality or faith.How can someone believe American society with all of its laws and rules was built on the premise that people should practice their own morality?
Our refusal to set limits is part of what makes people believe abortion rights advocates are out of step with the public.Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!! We have a winner.
Some Catholic organizations have criticized the Pope's statement.Guess what followed this statement? You guessed it. A statement from the executive director of "Catholics" for a Free Choice. I wonder if "some Catholic organizations" actually means one organization which calls itself Catholic while working to undermine the church's teachings.
Keirstead will use a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) in which a patient's DNA is transplanted into a donated unfertilized egg cell in order to generate stem cell lines with the same genetic makeup of the patient.Does SCNT (aka cloning) generate stem cell lines or does it attempt to create a cloned human embryo from which stem cells can be removed?
The research has stirred controversy because it involves harvesting stem cells from a surplus embryo, and because some people fear that it would lead to the cloning of humans.Could lead to the cloning of humans? It is the cloning of humans! How can embryos be considered "surplus" embryos if the embryos are created solely for the purpose of removing their stem cells? Kerstead also has an odd defense of why creating human embryos by cloning specifically for research is ethical.
Keirstead, whose father served as a Lutheran minister, says he considers his work to be ethical and moral because it involves using surplus eggs that were destined to be destroyed, and that the field eventually could produce cures or treatments for a variety of diseases and injuries.So then your research would be unethical if the eggs were removed specifically for cloning experiments?
I am woman : Life begins when I make the choice.What an odd and arrogant way of thinking. Life begins when I decide it does. Sure it does. Do you also happen control how fast the Earth rotates on its axis?
I had already chosen this baby as mine. I had already called myself a mother. Not to be, but made. My son's face was all that I awaited. Not motherhood, not 'life' because that already had arrived with my choice.
In addition, although anti-choice forces succeeded in making it hard for women and girls to get abortions (there are reputed to be places in the West where a woman has to drive 600 miles for an abortion)Because prolifers are the ones who are preventing all those abortionists from setting up shop in such lucrative locations like Cody, Wyoming and Alliance, Nebraska.
WALLACE: You say that while you support a woman's right to choose, that you personally hate abortion and you wish people didn't have them.
GIULIANI: That's a position that many...
WALLACE: My question is: Why?
GIULIANI: Many millions of Americans have that same position that I have.
Personally, if you asked my advice, if a woman asked my advice about abortion, the advice that I would give is: Shouldn't have the abortion, better to have the child, I'll help you, I'll support you in that choice.
WALLACE: But my question is: Why?
GIULIANI: Why?
WALLACE: Yeah.
GIULIANI: Because I think having the child is a much better decision. I think it's a much better moral decision. I think it's much better for society.
I think adoption is a better option than abortion. I supported that position by helping adoptions increase in New York when I was the mayor by 66 percent.
I don't look at it that way. I don't think it's for me to decide. I can't decide when life begins. All that I can decide is, you know, what are the constitutional issues? What are the legal issues? How do you deal with these things?I mean, how do deal with these things (legal, constitutional issues) if you don't know whether the human embryo is a living human being or not? Isn't the question of whether the human embryo is a living human being the foremost question here? If the embryo isn't then why are there legal or constitutional questions?
Posts
