The end of the stem cell debate as we know it?

also object to "the pill" as a potential abortificant, KP. If you don't believe me, check out their web sites and the debate over "Plan B," which differs only in dosage and scheduling from "the pill."

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

You are making up an issue out of whole cloth. For what purpose? To smear people whose philosophy you can't abide?

Do you have the faintest shred of evidence that "extreme right-to-lifers" (to use your term) would oppose this advance?

do! RU486 causes a fertilized egg to abort. That's after conception, and fits with what I said. If you mean the birth control pill, you are again referring to a Catholic objection to interferring with potential life.

That view is not held by the protestant leaders and thinkers that I referred to.

For example, BBC: Pill propelled into abortion debate, and this from the
American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists:
Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive.

As for your (or perhaps EdH's) argument that the Catholic Church is irrelevant to the abortion/birth control debate as taking an extreme position, nothing could be further from the truth -- history show that it was the American Catholic bishops who originally organized the National Right to Life Committee in 1971 as an arm of their Family Life Office, and the vast majority of NRLC chairwomen (for image reasons, the chairman is almost always a woman, probably so it doesn't seem so much like a bunch of old celibate men telling women what to do).

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

and ONLY if you are willing to accept Dr. Peter Singer's views as typical of the 'Pro Choice' crowd.

I don't believe that the sources you referenced represent the majority view (in fact I suspect that they are probably a fairly small minority) within the Right to Life community, although I suspect their views make for great alarmist fund raising letters from the 'Pro Choice' folks. I would note, for example, that there are a lot of gynecologists who refuse to perform elective abortions but not all that many in the Right to Life gynecology group you referenced.

It is not at all unusual for groups passionately involved in political debate to include a few folks who are considerably out of the mainstream. But that works both ways. It seems to me that Dr. Singer's views make perfectly good sense IF one accepts his ethical premises, and IMO his ethical premises aren't that far away from those of the pro-abortion groups. Therefore, I would argue that it is only a matter of time before the pro-abortion folks 'catch up' with Dr. Singer's cutting edge ethics.

However, I won't accuse you of Mr. Singer's abhorrent ethics if you won't accuse the Pro Life community in general with the views of a small minority.

most of us are truly pro-choice and not pro-abortion. Rudy Giuliani's stated position (if you heard the recent debate) comes very close to mine, although I do think it a moral choice when it comes down to choosing between the life of the woman and/or the life of the fetus, or when the fetus has a truly incurable genetic disease that can be diagnosed in utero by amnio or CV. But the list of those keeps shrinking, as I don't just take into consideration what can currently be treated, but what's likely to be treatable by the time the disease kills or irreversibly damages. For example, 2-3 years ago I would have included both Duchennes and CF on my list, now I wouldn't.

But the key thing is, that's simply my moral compass, which shouldn't affect anyone but myself, my wife, and anyone who happened to ask my opinion on a particular case -- unlike the majority of the "right to life" crowd, I don't feel the need (nor even the right) to impose my own moral values on everyone else by force of law. By the way, I put the term in parentheses because most of them seem to have little or no concern about suich other right to life issues as capital punishment, adequate medical care and housing for those who can't afford it, etc. That's the one thing I admire about the Catholic Church's position -- at least it's consistent across all right-to-life issues, though it's based on the notion that all even potential life is of equal value, a proposition which I reject. Incidentally, that's why I raised the issue of the sperm and egg being able to be made from the new stem cells. Despite Jack's "zinger" claims to the contrary, that's my prediction of how Pope Benedict will receive the news of this apparent scientific breakthrough . I very much hope to be proven wrong about that -- but I doubt it. As a final aside, while usually I am skeptical of such astonishing claims until they are replicated in other labs, because three labs on two coasts were involved in this case, I would extremely surprised if this were a hoax like the Korean reports a few years back.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

...turned into a very interesting objective presentation of ideas between two very knowledgeable individuals. I think the topic is best left to Bill and Dave and the rest of us can keep our mouths shut and learn something. Besides, no one ever learned anything while they were talking anyway. Carry on men...I'm reading and learning.

...well written, thoughtful, intelligent presentation of your position. This is exactly what I had in mind for a discussion without "zingers" and not in the argumentative mode with "zingers". Thanks for the good read.

throughout this thread, Jack. For instance, the root message originally had a couple of references to potential Bush vetoes, and I took them out. I think the problem is that people become so sensitized that they look for insult when none is intended -- or sometimes, one's own mindset is such that what he sees as fact is perceived by others as distortion. Incidentally, this is what Speakeasy used to be once upon a time -- reasoned ddiscussion of important (often political) issues without personal attack. Unfortunately, that gradually changed in the very late 90's (and became solified with the 2000 campaign and its Florida aftermath), and the modus operandi became insults, personal attacks, and worse

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

...I'll tell you "How many make up 'most of us'"...that is if you haven't figured it out already.

who wrote the article you linked to DK. The author, William F. Colliton, is clearly a Catholic linked to a Catholic Pro-Life organization.

The list of signatories begin with Marie A. Anderson who works for a Catholic organization, Paddy Jim Baggot who is with the Pope Paul VI Institute, Thomas L. Bodensteiner is linked to The American Life League which lists one of its major projects as 'Crusade for the Defense of Our Catholic Church'. Come on DK! You're wasting my time with a bogus argument.

Name the prominent, pro-life, protestant leaders that oppose birth control pills on the grounds that they cause abortions. That is simply NOT a protestant position.

movement is historically a creation of the Catholic Church, and most of its leaders have been Catholic women.

Secondly, check out this piece from "Ethics Daily about the growing alignment of Catholics, Southern Baptists, and Evangelicals on this issue:

>> Last month the Chicago Tribune ran a headline proclaiming contraception a "new rallying point" for the Christian right. "Of special interest is how closely evangelical Christians are willing to align themselves with traditional Catholics on the issue," the article said.
(link at Ethics Daily, which cites other sources as well).

"It is clear there is a major rethinking going on among evangelicals on this issue, especially among young people" Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said in the story. That is particularly true, he continued, with those disenchanted with the sexual revolution. "There is a real push back against the contraceptive culture now." Mohler recently devoted an episode of his daily radio program to "Considering the Contraceptive Culture."

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Opposition to a contraceptive culture DOES NOT establish a belief that contraception ends human life. You are playing with words DK. There are many things implied in the article that have zero to do with abortion. I see opposition to premarital sex, but that has NOTHING to do with abortion.

As far as Albert Mohler is concerned, I don't think I would consider the head of a theological seminary as a prominent leader, and I think many evangelicals would question his views. However, here is part of what he says about birth control:

Fourth, Christian couples are not ordered by Scripture to maximize the largest number of children that could be conceived. Given our general state of health in advanced societies, a couple who marries in their early twenties and has a healthy and regular sex life could well produce over fifteen offspring before the wife passes her early forties. Such families should be rightly honored, but this level of reproduction is certainly not mandated by the Bible.

Fifth, with all this in view, evangelical couples may, at times, choose to use contraceptives in order to plan their families and enjoy the pleasures of the marital bed. The couple must consider all these issues with care, and must be truly open to the gift of children. The moral justification for using contraceptives must be clear in the couple's mind, and fully consistent with the couple's Christian commitments.

That statement is totally at odds with any notion that potential life is real life. Mohler clearly stands in the broad protestant view that life begins with conception, and not prior to that point.

You still haven't made your point DK. The idea that potential life is real, or actual, life remains a Catholic view not shared by Protestants. You are confusing a desire to cooperate with an endorsement and acceptance of beliefs. That has not happened.

I don't troll around the web sites associated with either side of the abortion 'discussion' with any frequency, but I don't recall many objections to contraception in general from the 'Right to Life' community except for the Roman Catholic Church's long standing objection to most forms of contraception. While the Catholics could be described as a major Right to Life group I don't think you can generalize their position.

I don't think many folks, even 'Right to Life' folks, would characterize traditional oral contraceptives as potential abortifcants.

The debate over 'Plan B' is hardly relevant because the concern there is not the dosage and scheduling but the mechanism of action for 'Plan B'. The idea behind traditional oral contraceptives is to suppress ovulation. Most folks do not equate that with abortion. The idea behind 'Plan B' is to prevent implantation of a fertilized embryo. Many people DO equate that with abortion.

Also, does not contain Estrogen.

Also, you may want to give Do Oral Contraceptives Cause Abortions? a read.

Caktus, but ask Dr. Bill about that to be sure.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Most modern oral contraceptives do contain both an estrogen and a progestin. There are a few that contain just a progestin but the progestin-only pills are frequently regarded as less effective than the combination pills. Newer pills tend to have less estrogen than older pills because many of the major side effects of combination pills are a result of the estrogen content.

One of the most effective forms of contraception, Depo-Provera, does not contain estrogen but it is not a pill and it is not a new drug. There have also been a few safety concerns about Depo-Provera.

Although Plan B does not contain estrogen the original 'morning after' regimens did use combination estrogen/progestin pills. Unfortunately they caused too many side effects.

Excerpts from an article in the Watchtower, 6/15/89, which addresses a couple of issues in this sub-thread:
The combination pill contains the hormones estrogen and progestin. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, "the primary mechanism" of the combination pill is "inhibition of ovulation." It seems that when taken consistently, this type of pill almost always prevents the release of an egg from the ovary. When no egg or ovum is released, conception cannot occur in the Fallopian tubes. While this type of pill may also cause changes in "the endometrium [lining of the womb] (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)," this is considered a secondary mechanism. ... What of the other type of pill-the progestin-only pill (minipill)? Drug Evaluations (1986) reports: "Inhibition of ovulation is not a prominent feature of contraception with progestin-only minipills. These agents cause formation of a thick cervical mucus that is relatively impenetrable to sperm; they may increase tubal transport time and also cause endometrial involution [which would hinder the development of any fertilized ovum]." ... Scientific studies indicate that normally (with a womb unaffected by birth control pills) "sixty per cent of fertilized eggs are . . . lost before the first missed period." That this happens, though, is quite different from choosing to use a method of birth control that is more likely to impede implantation of a fertilized ovum.

And you may remember this about the original 'Morning-After' Pills:
College students in Canada are being given a powerful 'morning-after' birth-control pill "by the bucket," according to the Canadian Medical Association. The pills, taken for five days, are effective if begun seventy-two hours after intercourse. Such pill taking is evidence of the deepening moral breakdown on campuses today. However, medical authorities say a drug utilized in the pill, diethylstilbestrol (DES), has been linked with cancer. When residues of DES were found in beef livers, the government suspended its use on cattle. U.S. scientists report that young women whose mothers had been given DES developed a rare form of vaginal cancer.
(Awake! of 1/22/73)

I've heard that the human body is a complex entity; perhaps you agree.

that such topic(s) don't have to become purely religious or political. But they do have quite the potential to stir up members with the propensity to argue from those angles only...and can launch into tangents/sub threads that are clearly over the line. I will disagree with Dave's assertion in your link that this is a highly religious discussion. It does have the religious component that I'd expect from such a highly charged subject. Note that Dave K's original post acknowledges the topic as controversial. It's been bantered here before and now it's back. I'll just consider this a test to see of we've learned some necessary skills in restraint. Personally, I don't think it's too bad at this point. Hoping for a passing grade.

When I was speaking of "highly religious," I was speaking specifically of the subthread where Doug and I were discussing (Saint) Paul... And my lack of further contribution to the main thread tonight doesn't represent "hit and run," but rather that I've been too busy on the forum this weekend and now have about an hour to complete about two hours' work for a fellow faculty member

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

and it comes from this extract from Lee's message

"Because of the numerous amounts of complaints of personal attacks and overwhelming inability for some members to keep a civilized conversation over political and religious views and stance, Speakeasy will no longer be allowing any more posts in regards to these two topics." (Underline is mine) So, we just don't discuss our political views and stances??

One could interpret that historical aspects are ok. As such, Paul's offerings could be said to be affecting today's thinking on a controversial subject. Your discussion with DP seemed to contain that observation. Though your opinion was evident, I couldn't say you were taking a religious stance but just noting a possible historical reason for some of today's thinking that just happened to come from a person who life we only hear about "officially" in a religious publication.

Seems to be a [strictly] objective discussion.