Results 1 to 29 of 29
  1. #1
    Afric Pepperbird
    Reputation: dirt farmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,713

    OT: Boycott human fetuses as food!

    Seriously, folks, I'm not making this up.

    Oklahoma Republican seeks to ban aborted human fetuses in food products.

    Sadly, only in America....

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GotoDengo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    893
    Politics, abortion (and thereby religion), all in one.

    A good pic to sum up the likely result of this thread (and throw in guns as well!).


  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2wheelsnotfour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,878
    This post has nothing to do with mountain biking. It seems you are trying to use MTBR as your anti-Republican soap box. However, there is a little more to this bill then you are insinuating. The bill has to do with stem cell research, which, by the way, I am in favor of allowing with and without government funding.

    Ralph Shortey, Oklahoma State Senator, Introduces Bill Banning Aborted Fetuses In Food

    Sen. Ralph Shortey of Oklahoma City introduced on Tuesday Senate Bill 1418, which prohibits "the sale or manufacture of food or products which contain aborted human fetuses." He says he based the bill on an article he read online about an anti-abortion group boycotting companies that allegedly use embryonic stem cells to research and develop artificial sweeteners.

    “People are thinking that this has to do with fetuses being chopped up and put in our burritos,” Shortey told NewsOK. "“That's not the case. It's beyond that.

    “There are companies that are using embryonic stem cells to research and basically cause a chemical reaction to determine whether or not something tastes good or not,” he said. “As a pro-life advocate, it kind of disturbed me that we would use aborted embryos or aborted human fetuses to extract stem cells and use them for research to basically make things taste better.”

    PepsiCo did partner with food product development company Senomyx to develop a new low-calorie sweetener, but the company denied using fetal tissue in its research in an April 2011 email to Children of God for Life.

  4. #4
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,201
    I swear I'm going to start neg reppin everyone who starts these jackwad fuggin threads. This aint the place for all the ********.

  5. #5
    Titanium junkie
    Reputation: Loudviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Wow, no wonder I ride alone, let me help you all with an observation.
    If you have a Political thought, let it go.
    Just can't escape B.S. no matter where you go.

  6. #6
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    27,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Loudviking View Post
    Wow, no wonder I ride alone, let me help you all with an observation.
    If you have a Political thought, let it go.
    Just can't escape B.S. no matter where you go.
    ^^^^^^
    What he said.
    Front Range, Colorado.

  7. #7
    Afric Pepperbird
    Reputation: dirt farmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,713
    Where does the "politics" come in here? If a Democrat had sponsored this bill, wouldn't it be just as insane? Do Democrats eat fetuses? C'mon, somebody throw me a freakin' bone here.

  8. #8
    Afric Pepperbird
    Reputation: dirt farmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,713
    Quote Originally Posted by 2wheelsnotfour View Post
    PepsiCo did partner with food product development company Senomyx to develop a new low-calorie sweetener, but the company denied using fetal tissue in its research in an April 2011 email to Children of God for Life.
    So why the bill, then??

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    940
    Here is the back ground information on the bill.

    Patents support Oklahoma senator’s bill to ban use of aborted fetal tissues in food research | LifeSiteNews.com

    It's sad that we actually have to pass a bill to stop this sort of stupidity.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by dirt farmer View Post
    So why the bill, then??
    Like most it's either agenda driven or sheer stupidity .
    I'm betting on the latter in this case

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    940
    Why the bill, because the abortion industry makes around $1450 per abortion. The whole idea is prevent the abortion industry from commoditizing harvested tissue from murder children in the womb.

    I encourage eveyone to check out the Genocide Awareness Project.

    The Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) / AbortionNO.org

  12. #12
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,842
    Just ride your bikes people. There are plenty other places on the net to argue over this stuff.

  13. #13
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    27,317
    Yeah really!
    Besides I was too busy looking at the girl who is about to lose her eye, shooting the gun. To get any further into it.
    Front Range, Colorado.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,688
    Fetuseseses...mmmmmm....yummy. Tastes like chicken.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nuffink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by Shark View Post
    Just ride your bikes people. There are plenty other places on the net to argue over this stuff.
    Yeah! This place is strictly bikes and guns.

  16. #16
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,615
    srsly?

    no, really....is it really that 'wintery' out there to start threads like this?

    jeebus

    [/facepam]

    binned.
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  17. #17
    see me rollin, they hatin
    Reputation: NicoleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,618
    why would we want to waste a nice healthy abortion? its like, eating what you kill. any good hunter knows that. send the abortion stew to africa or something.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by NicoleB28 View Post
    why would we want to waste a nice healthy abortion? its like, eating what you kill. any good hunter knows that. send the abortion stew to africa or something.

  19. #19
    see me rollin, they hatin
    Reputation: NicoleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,618
    never smoked the stuff. i'm a very wholesome and clean livin' gal.



    who just happens to enjoy spreading abortion jam on my toast.

  20. #20
    R.I.P. Pugsley.
    Reputation: Rabies010's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,706
    I like em fried...
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by dirt farmer View Post
    Seriously, folks, I'm not making this up.

    Oklahoma Republican seeks to ban aborted human fetuses in food products.

    Sadly, only in America....
    Why is this sad?

    Are you saying you're OK with eating fetuses?

    I am pro choice but I don't care to eat a fetus and don't think they should be used in food.
    Nobody cares...........

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    940
    @chas_martel.........

    If your prochoice then why don't you think human embryonic tissue should be used in food, cosmetics, and scientific research?

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by sopwithcamel View Post
    @chas_martel.........

    If your prochoice then why don't you think human embryonic tissue should be used in food, cosmetics, and scientific research?
    Because I don't think people should be consuming other humans parts. I don't see how being prochoice leads to thinking that eating human tissue is acceptable.

    Also, while prochoice I am not proabortion. It is like homosexuality, stupid to be that way but knock yourself out.

    Seriously, you are OK with eating human tissue? Do you think others are out of line for not being ok with it?
    Nobody cares...........

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    940
    @Chas_martel......

    The reason I asked is because you seem to be "okay" with murdering children in the womb on one hand but on the other hand you seem to have moral problems with using there tissue in scientific research, cometics and in food on the other. The question you need to ask your self is why do all human beings regardless of size, level of development, enviorment, and degree of dependcy have equal value???

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by sopwithcamel View Post
    @Chas_martel......

    The reason I asked is because you seem to be "okay" with murdering children in the womb on one hand but on the other hand you seem to have moral problems with using there tissue in scientific research, cometics and in food on the other. The question you need to ask your self is why do all human beings regardless of size, level of development, enviorment, and degree of dependcy have equal value???
    I did not say I am OK with murdering children. It is just that abortion is not a blood sin.
    Just a religion thing for me, you most likely disagree. (I am a Jew that believes the messiah has already walked the face of the earth.) Check out Exodus 21:22 or there abouts.

    PS: Are you OK with eating people killed on death row?
    Nobody cares...........

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    940
    Fortunately for all Jews they are also under the Natural Moral Law which says killing an inocent human being is murder and includes abortion as well. Science tells us at that at moment of conception that an embryo in the womb is growing living distinct human being. So rather being a religious issue abortion is a Scienfitic one.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by sopwithcamel View Post
    Fortunately for all Jews they are also under the Natural Moral Law which says killing an inocent human being is murder and includes abortion as well. Science tells us at that at moment of conception that an embryo in the womb is growing living distinct human being. So rather being a religious issue abortion is a Scienfitic one.
    I don't know anything about "Natural Moral Law" but I do know that the Torah says that causing a fetus to be expelled is not a blood sin. This also applies to Christians, show me one other example ANYWHERE in vol 1 or vol 2 where this topic is addressed.

    And science seems to be losing out to religion and politics as those two are OK with abortion. In the U.S. of A. at least.
    Nobody cares...........

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    940
    The Natural Moral Law applies to all human being as it is written in to humanity by God at the moment our creation.

    You don't need the Torah in order logically deduce that the idea that murder and aborition is morally wrong.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    940
    The unborn child differs from the newborn in four ways, none of which are relevant to its status as a human being. Those four ways are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency.
    The acronym SLED is a helpful reminder of those differences.

    Size: The unborn are smaller then newborns, but since when has size had anything to do with the rights that people have? Men are generally larger than women, does that mean they deserve more rights? Are you less of a person because you are bigger or smaller then someone else? Clearly size isn't the issue.

    Level of development: True, the unborn are less developed than newborns, but this too is morally irrelevant. A newborn child, for that matter, is less developed than a toddler. A toddler is less developed than an adolescent. An adolescent is less developed than an adult. But we speak of all as equally human. Is a child of four, for example, less of a person because she has not yet developed sexually? It follows, then, that the ability to perform human functions is not a necessary condition for human personhood. Rather, a person is one with the natural, inherent capacity to give rise to personal acts--even if she lacks the current ability to perform those acts. People who are unconscious do not have the present capacity to perform personal acts. We don't kill them because of it, nor should we kill the unborn.

    Environment: True, the unborn is located in a different place, but how does a change in location suddenly change a non-human entity into a human one? Did you stop being human when you walked from your house to the car? From the kitchen to the den? Clearly, where one is has no bearing on who one is. A child in the incubator of her mother's womb is no less a child then the one being sustained by neonatal technology. Ladies and gentlemen, you don't stop being human simply because you have a different address.

    Degree of dependency: If viability is what makes one human, then all those dependent on kidney machines, heart pace-makers, and insulin would have to be declared non-persons. There is no ethical difference between an unborn child who is plugged into and dependent upon its mother and a kidney patient who is plugged into and dependent upon a kidney machine. Siamese twins do not forfeit their right to live simply because they depend on each others circulatory systems.
    We can see, then, that the unborn child differs from a newborn one in only four ways--size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency--and none of those differences are good reasons for disqualifying it as fully human.

    Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual’s life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." This is so be-cause this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing.


    - The above is not a religious faith belief.
    - The above is not debatable, not questioned.
    - The above is not a philosophic theory.
    - It is a universally accepted scientific fact.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •