An example of pure science - dedicated professionals using FACTS to solve problems that seemed "unsurmountable" only a few years ago! President Bush faced a dilemma, being pro-life while being considered anti-science. And so, he compromised, allowing continued work on existing cells created from destroyed human embryos. The Left was not satisfied, seeing a need for MORE of the killing of those tiny humans. The Right was not happy because the government allowed research, though without its funds, to continue. And so, dedicated scientists used funds available to them to do the obvious: figure out HOW an ovum could change nuclear material from a fat cell into an embryo (the source for "stem" cells) in the process of cloning.
The solution was in the genes. Trial and error, and some common sense elimination, narrowed the genes down to FOUR! In a strange switch of priorities, Japanese scientists did this with mouse cells and Americans did it with human cells. It works the same with both species. "Stem cells" can be grown from skin cells (or any cell) in a lab! Now BOTH sides of the political spectrum can get back to advancing research "within ethical boundaries."
Check out the New York Times article (full article available for a limited time only) for further details.
Showing posts with label pro-life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pro-life. Show all posts
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Debate excerpt: Mike on Morals
From YouTube comes a pertinent answer to "What is the most pressing moral issue facing this country today?" Huckabee's pro-life concerns reach far beyond the womb:
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Brownback takes a stand
I have not decided which of the presidential hopefuls to support in the 2008 primaries (coming in Feb. 2008, I believe), but I certainly think that Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas looks promising. In a recent editorial in the NY Times, the paper lambasted him for daring to block the nomination of Janet Neff. Why would he do such a thing?
Well, according to the Times, to be against gay marriage is showing "hateful views toward gay people." Sen. Brownback took note that the judge had not only "attended" a commitment ceremony for a woman, but gave a homily at said ceremony. The senator seemed to think that this showed that the judge may just be too biased to sit on a federal bench. He offered a compromise - to stop blocking the nomination if the good judge would recuse herself on any cases dealing with "gay marriage." And this, to the Times, is hateful.
This is the same editorial board that has supported the efforts of the Democrats for the last six years in blocking the nominations of pro-life judges based on their bias towards life and against abortion. For some reason I have missed the editorials that considered such actions as "hateful"!
I guess "hate" is in the mind of the writer.
Well, according to the Times, to be against gay marriage is showing "hateful views toward gay people." Sen. Brownback took note that the judge had not only "attended" a commitment ceremony for a woman, but gave a homily at said ceremony. The senator seemed to think that this showed that the judge may just be too biased to sit on a federal bench. He offered a compromise - to stop blocking the nomination if the good judge would recuse herself on any cases dealing with "gay marriage." And this, to the Times, is hateful.
This is the same editorial board that has supported the efforts of the Democrats for the last six years in blocking the nominations of pro-life judges based on their bias towards life and against abortion. For some reason I have missed the editorials that considered such actions as "hateful"!
I guess "hate" is in the mind of the writer.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Dr. Erick Keroack - Has PP met its match?
The liberal elite is running scared! In the euphoria of the midterm election results, they hoped that the "thumpin'" wound have moderated the president. So he appoints a pro-life advocate to the Dept. of HHS!
An "unchastened" Bush appoints OB-GYN Dr. Eric Keroack as undersecretary that needs no confirmation who supports "traditional values" and this is how the media elite react:
The NY Times
... whose method of trying to dissuade women from having an abortion includes spreading the scary and medically inaccurate myth that having an abortion steeply increases the risk of breast cancer. The group also has a policy against dispensing contraception even to married women. It has stated on its Web site that the distribution of contraceptive drugs or devices is “demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness.”
... promoted the novel argument that sex with multiple partners alters brain chemistry in a way that makes it harder for women to form bonding relationships. One of the researchers cited by Dr. Keroack has called the claim “complete pseudoscience” unsupported by her findings.
The Washington Post
"Dr. Keroack, an obstetrician-gynecologist, is about to start work at the Department of Health and Human Services, overseeing federally funded family planning programs. To put it simply, the Bush administration's choice to direct the federal effort to make contraceptives available to low-income women works for a group that doesn't support using contraception. What comes next -- a science adviser who doesn't believe in evolution?"
----
It seems that at least in minor appointments Mr. Bush is appointing those with traditional values to stem the liberal tide. The arrogance of the liberal elite is what is really scary. They have been telling lies and half-truths for so long that they believe their own propoganda!
I have seen the evidence for breast cancer risks, for example, and I see real sustainable data that not only shows corelations but physical mechanisms for such risks. And to lambast an organization that seeks to uphold the dignity of women (though with politically incorrect reasons) seems to be a slippery ground, don't you think?
Though I am Protestant and not strictly in the camp of traditional Catholic teachings on contraceptives, I can see where an organizaiton like A Woman's Concern could take a stand against "dispensing contraceptives." In light of the declining fertility rates among the "developed" nations, it seems a little disingenuous to deride those that disuade contraception! That Dr. Keroack "works for" such a group as an advisor shouldn't disqualify him to work for a conservative government, should it?
And what would be wrong with a science advisor who doesn't believe in evolution? :-)
An "unchastened" Bush appoints OB-GYN Dr. Eric Keroack as undersecretary that needs no confirmation who supports "traditional values" and this is how the media elite react:
The NY Times
... whose method of trying to dissuade women from having an abortion includes spreading the scary and medically inaccurate myth that having an abortion steeply increases the risk of breast cancer. The group also has a policy against dispensing contraception even to married women. It has stated on its Web site that the distribution of contraceptive drugs or devices is “demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness.”
... promoted the novel argument that sex with multiple partners alters brain chemistry in a way that makes it harder for women to form bonding relationships. One of the researchers cited by Dr. Keroack has called the claim “complete pseudoscience” unsupported by her findings.
The Washington Post
"Dr. Keroack, an obstetrician-gynecologist, is about to start work at the Department of Health and Human Services, overseeing federally funded family planning programs. To put it simply, the Bush administration's choice to direct the federal effort to make contraceptives available to low-income women works for a group that doesn't support using contraception. What comes next -- a science adviser who doesn't believe in evolution?"
----
It seems that at least in minor appointments Mr. Bush is appointing those with traditional values to stem the liberal tide. The arrogance of the liberal elite is what is really scary. They have been telling lies and half-truths for so long that they believe their own propoganda!
I have seen the evidence for breast cancer risks, for example, and I see real sustainable data that not only shows corelations but physical mechanisms for such risks. And to lambast an organization that seeks to uphold the dignity of women (though with politically incorrect reasons) seems to be a slippery ground, don't you think?
Though I am Protestant and not strictly in the camp of traditional Catholic teachings on contraceptives, I can see where an organizaiton like A Woman's Concern could take a stand against "dispensing contraceptives." In light of the declining fertility rates among the "developed" nations, it seems a little disingenuous to deride those that disuade contraception! That Dr. Keroack "works for" such a group as an advisor shouldn't disqualify him to work for a conservative government, should it?
And what would be wrong with a science advisor who doesn't believe in evolution? :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
