There is no such thing as a "mob ruling by a rational moral code".

Ayn Rand did not "postulate" a philosophy, and philosophy, including her philosophy based on reason, is far broader than "Immoral to initiate force". That premise of anti-intellectual, a-philosophical libertarianism, which concrete bound cynical mentality declaring everything to permanently be a "mob", also can't see a cause of the world-history beyond "here now weapons".

It is not true that "we will always have mob rule". The people with whom you live and work among in this country today are not just a "mob". This country was not founded as "rule by a mob", and in the 19th century especially, was not "ruled by a mob".

The politics of a country follows its broadly accepted philosophy. Ayn Rand recognized that cause and advocated changing fundamental ideas over the time that that takes, not "wishful thinking" from "postulating" libertarianism. Whether or not a country is "ruled by a mob" depends on what the people understand and think about the importance of reason and individualism.

Any best choice is "ethical", but who goes around talking like that, in abstractions so much broader than necessary and which drops the meaning? You wouldn't say you carried furniture in a truck instead of a car because it's more ethical.

Don't you see something peculiar in the fad to routinely refer to embryonic stem cells as not "ethical", instilling the association "unethical embryonic stem cells" to be automatic? It reflects the drive by anti-abortionists to inculcate the notion that ebryonic stem cells are allegedly "unethical" because they are embryonic.

"Control over one's own cells' explains nothing for ethics. Whose control over what cells in comparison with what?

"Risk of lawsuits" from irrationalists is most ethically eliminated by removing the improper legal grounds for them so there is no standing. There is no "third party" rationally involved in embryo cells.

What does "should have wrote it doesn't strengthen the Support your argument" mean?

Rereading my response I should have wrote it doesn’t strengthen the Support your argument ,Instead of it doesn’t strengthen your support of such actions. My apologies ,I stand corrected.

The reason is that it is ethically better (and it is) is because one has control over one's own cells. The reason why it is scientifically better is the dramatically lower chance of immune rejection, which is a BIG problem. The other reason that it is ethically better to use one's own cells is the greatly reduced risk of lawsuits. Bringing unnecessary third parties into the process makes the stem cell debate a much thornier problem than it should be, for patient, clinician, etc.

Whatever the future scientific and economic progress, not using embryonic stem cells is not ethically better and neither is banning scientific research to pander to religion, which is reprehensible . That principle is not a moot point.

The key aspect of embryonic stem cells is that they are pluripotent. Yamanaka's technology is in induced pluripotent stem cells.

I didn't agree or disagree with Bush on embryonic stem cells, but Yamanaka and others adapted to come up with a solution that was both ethically and economically better.

The embryonic stem cell debate is at this point essentially moot.

You wrote, "Stating other fraud and corruption exists doesn’t strengthen your support of such actions", as if all I do is state the existence without condemning it.

Being born after the development of everything is sufficient is much more than the early onset of "brain" activity.

The specimens are used for research broader than tissue engineering. But whatever the state of progress today, the discovery of use of one's own stem cells did not make it equivalent to embryonic stem cells.

Anti-abortionists opposed to stem cell research pronounced a false equivalence from the beginning as propaganda to ban use of embryonic stem cells. They partially succeeded when the Bush administration intruded in the scientific research on behalf of religion by banning funding, moving it to 'approved' work. Despite the fact that the taxes did not go down because the funding was only shifted, there was a lot of protest and private funding increased to continue the embryonic stem cell research.

I did not say you support corruption. In fact I strongly believe you are as frustrated with corruption as any critical thinker should be.

Do you mean that more than brain wave activity should be required to prove that it is a human being?--That seems that you would be more likely to allow an abortion than I would.

The harvesting of embryos is completely unnecessary now for tissue engineering research. Two separate research groups back in 2006 (one led by Yamanaka) pioneered the genetic engineering necessary to make one's own stem cells act as if they were inside a mother's womb.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...

Using one's own stem cells is far cheaper and safer. This is why the "specimens" get so little now.

This statement by Dr. Z is not true: "An unborn child is by default legally innocent, since it has had no chance to commit any act to prove it has unlawful intent. That has nothing to do with religion."

He previously wrote, "When a society blesses and celebrates an execution of the innocent, it's a grim testament to its moral state", which premise is false and makes no sense at all. It is offensive. No one, let alone "society", is "blessing and celebrating" "execution" of anything, and the typical emotional appeals to "innocent" fetuses is a contradiction in terms now rationalized into a legal argument.

That is an offensively false and hysterical attempt to inculcate guilt, but more on that later because as it is too important to overlook. First look at the underlying cognitive dissonance underlying the false imagery.

There is no such thing as "by default legally innocent" for entities that cannot make choices. A fetus cannot be either innocent or guilty of anything; it does not have the ability to morally choose, let alone commit crimes or choose to -- or choose not to.

That lack of ability to make such choices does not make it "innocent by default". Concepts of morality, let alone crime, do not apply to a fetus. "Innocent fetus" is a stolen concept, ignoring and contradicting the facts and concepts on which the concept 'innocent' depends. There is no such thing as a "default" use of a concept that is inapplicable. The concept 'color' does not apply to sound, which does not have a "default color" either, nor is it "innocent by default" until proven guilty of "criminal intent". Appeal to such floating abstractions as "default innocence" of a fetus is only a default on the rational use of concepts.

A fetus' "intent under the law" is another stolen concept. A fetus cannot have either lawful or unlawful intent. There is no such thing as fetus being innocent under the law; it does not make choices and take actions under the law at all. There can no such things as "criminal intent" of a fetus, or its opposite. Law does not apply to actions by fetuses; law does not apply to fantasy. Yet the contradiction is exploited to rationalize conjuring a false imagery of an innocent victim unjustly "executed".

I did not say that these conceptual fallacies are "religion", but religion is a common instance and source of it. I wrote that "moral concepts do not apply to a [fetus] at all -- other than by religionists harboring the anti-concept of 'original sin'", the last as a qualification on the misuse of moral terms.

An anti-concept is an "artificial, unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept". The religious anti-concept 'original sin' -- being born guilty -- makes no more sense than "innocent fetus" that anti-abortionists invoke constantly in emotional appeals.

The factual basis of a proper morality, let alone law, is not religion, but invocations of the anti-concept 'original sin' is historically seen as an illogical concept of morality explicitly buried deep into religious doctrine for centuries, in contrast with run of the mill emotional stolen concepts like "innocent fetus". 'Original sin' and 'innocent fetus' are two sides of the same illogical coin.

Yet here we see the non applicable concept of "innocence" strained into the fantasy of alleged legal argument -- in a transparent attempt to pretend the contradictions of a false morality are merely a matter of law -- just as the anti-abortionists bizarrely invoke the "Constitution" for alleged "rights of the unborn".

None of it makes any sense. As Ellsworth Toohey said, "Don't bother to examine a folly -- ask yourself only what it accomplishes". We have examined it, but what is it intended to accomplish? The same game as the Catholic church for centuries instilling guilt into innocent people for not following an impossible anti-man dogma at the root of the anti-abortionists' barbaric demands on women to bear children they don't want. The impossibility of following such dogma, by a populace that believes in it, guarantees a populace with head bowed in perpetual guilt, ready to be manipulated and kept in permanent tortured sense of life on earth.

Such is the nature of the offensive attempts to impose guilt for the 'crime' of a woman choosing to live her own life with her own happiness as an end it itself, with the false guilt inculcated through the tortured logic of moral intimidation (all from Dr. Z): hysterical accusations of "execution" and "murder" of the "innocent" in a "party atmosphere" with "society" allegedly celebrating "butchers like Gosnell" -- sarcastic demeaning of a woman's life and values as nothing more than "crimping a social life" -- a desire for "sterilization" of women who don't submit -- and demanding altruistic sacrifice in the name of "kindness". Those who are attracted to at least the sense of life in Atlas Shrugged should know better than to accept that kind of thinking.

As already stated, "'Society' is not 'celebrating' any of this, any more than an individual 'celebrates' having an appendix removed. An abortion is a temporary setback required so one can move on and continue to live and pursue value. One may 'celebrate' that aspect -- like celebrating the end of World War II -- which is why the passage of the NY law was commemorated."

DrZ's "I guess we should ignore the cheering and clapping, and all the happy faces in the New York legislature with the passage of the law legalizing third trimester abortion" is non-responsive.

I don't speak for the general sense of life of Cuomo and NY Democrats, but celebrating a reform of some remnants of the abortion restrictions imposed by the Catholic church since the 19th century is a rational response. The essence of the reform is what Ayn Rand advocated in the 1960s https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... Because they are Democrats and generally welfare statists, however, the reform was package-dealed with other provisions such as more requirements for insurance companies.

Abortion in NY is not "now legal under any conditions" and the law has nothing to do with Gosnell. Late term abortions require, among other regulations of abortions, that the mother's health or life be at stake, which is almost always the case in a very serious way with late term abortions anyway.

Gosnell has nothing to do with any of this. Ideologues constantly demagogue abortion with hysterical propaganda misrepresenting abortion as "Gosnell", "murder" and "infanticide".

Gosnel did not got away with actual murder and harm because of an alleged "lack of interest". Anti-abortionists are notorious for their "interest" in lobbying and controls, and in stalking, harassing and threatening doctors across the country to the point that state laws were needed to prohibit them from accosting patients and doctors.

Monitoring and controlling doctors, requiring them to limit their practice and act only under state intrusion and permission is a statist premise, along with the anarchist mob mentality. The possibility of some violation of a law is not an excuse to prevent legal and moral activity, including abortions.

All forms of contraception are already "readily available". No one wants go through an abortion that can be avoided. Nothing should be "covered any mother who wants it", which is not possible without government force violating rights.

Abortion is not euthanasia. To say that either "creates societal approval for a disregard for human life" is a non sequitur. Laws and common practices follow what is already generally accepted, which in turn cannot in this country be categorized as "disregard for human life" that "fits in well for authoritarian rule".

Abortion is not "terminating" people's lives, and the common practice of not taking extraordinary measures to keep the suffering, terminally ill alive is on behalf of the value of human life, not "disregard for human life", "terminating the unfit" and "authoritarian rule".

These repetitious conservative mantras trying to frighten people out of supporting abortion with hyperbole about "murder", "infanticide", "nazis", "euthanasia", "terminating the unfit", "authoritarian rule" and the rest of it are all hysterical nonsense.

I don't support corruption. The organizations taking subsidies appropriated by Congress, and individuals or even the organizations giving money to candidates does not imply illegal kickbacks. I would expect those people to support Democrats regardless of specific pork to Planned Parenthood. But the whole system is rotten when political interests with subsidies and other possible favors can buy what they want. No one should be able to buy government policy.

What have the courts ruled on criminality. The last I heard it was going the other way, with the activists in trouble, but I haven't followed it since then.

They do what they in fact do with the organ specimens for the purpose of research. That is all it meant. I don't speculate about what they get on average per abortion; such extrapolation would only be a guess. The total is far less than the subsidies and there is no evidence that they are getting rich from it or that that is the motive of the organization. If even a few of them are getting a lot of money from the research specimens it should be documented and exposed.

Sadly, pretty much this.

Parenthood Organization Itself
2686
Q
!!mG7VJxZNCI
10 Feb 2019 - 5:24:09 PM
https://www.liveaction.org/what-we-do...
Why do D's push to fund [PP] using taxpayer dollars ($500m/year)?
Where does the money go?
Past political donations of [PP]?
What is the process of disposal re: aborted fetus?
What regulations (who monitors) are in place to ensure that process is being followed?
Why is there a new push by D's to legalize late term abortions?
See past drops re: [PP] re: Congressional report (WARNING: GRAPHIC)
This has nothing to do w/ a woman's right to choose (tactic they deploy when challenged to activate liberals/media hysteria).
The focus is on the organization itself.
https://www.crainsnewyork.com/awards/...
Ask yourself a very simple question:
Given the amount of evidence demonstrating illegal & disturbing activities by [PP]- where is the FBI investigation?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/plan...
[RR][MCCABE]
What senior political officials are providing cover to [PP]?
Will action be taken by DOJ/FBI?
2019?
Q

Taking money from the Govt provided to them by the D’s and giving even $1 let alone $30 million back in Campaign donations is clearly a kickback.
Stating other fraud and corruption exists doesn’t strengthen your support of such actions.

For someone who purports to oppose looters .You sure ignore these criminals.